• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats Want To Lower Taxes On The Rich

^
Correct.

More importantly, you have to be *extremely* wealthy to get hit badly on this in a net effect. The TJCA had all sorts of other offsets in there that benefited the wealthy. If Jaeger really is a business owner, especially operating on a pass thru basis, then the S179 benefit alone is worth a fortune if done right. Never mind the reduced brackets and increased standard deduction. TJCA reduced my effective rate by ~4%.

Doesn't matter for the discussion.

Wait.. is that it.. you are okay with government officials picking winners and losers by using the tax code to purposely effect certain states that tend not to vote their way?

Especially if YOU personally benefit from it? Oh got it. Hey.. as long as others are subsidizing your tax cut.. why its fine.
 
^
Correct.

More importantly, you have to be *extremely* wealthy to get hit badly on this in a net effect. The TJCA had all sorts of other offsets in there that benefited the wealthy. If Jaeger really is a business owner, especially operating on a pass thru basis, then the S179 benefit alone is worth a fortune if done right. Never mind the reduced brackets and increased standard deduction. TJCA reduced my effective rate by ~4%.

Sec. 179 is timing. It's valuable but what you get accelerated into the current year is lost in future years. Yes, time value of money...

And the supposedly increased standard deduction also absorbed exemptions, and works for couples with up to 1 child, but is a negative for couples with 2 or more.

The old standard deduction was $12,700, and exemptions were about $4,000 each, so MFJ no kids was $21K. One child was about $25k. That's roughly the current standard deduction. For two or more kids (4 exemptions or more) the change reduced the 'standard deduction' by $4k per person over 3.
 
Doesn't matter for the discussion.

Wait.. is that it.. you are okay with government officials picking winners and losers by using the tax code to purposely effect certain states that tend not to vote their way?

Especially if YOU personally benefit from it? Oh got it. Hey.. as long as others are subsidizing your tax cut.. why its fine.

The federal, state, and local governments pick winners and losers a thousand times a day. Our tax code needs to get flatter, not more convoluted and part of that means slowly getting rid of deductions (all of them). This is part of that. You apparently care because your sacred cow took a beating, but as a net result you should have come out way ahead if your taxes resemble what you claim to be around here.

Sec. 179 is timing. It's valuable but what you get accelerated into the current year is lost in future years. Yes, time value of money...

And the supposedly increased standard deduction also absorbed exemptions, and works for couples with up to 1 child, but is a negative for couples with 2 or more.

The old standard deduction was $12,700, and exemptions were about $4,000 each, so MFJ no kids was $21K. One child was about $25k. That's roughly the current standard deduction. For two or more kids (4 exemptions or more) the change reduced the 'standard deduction' by $4k per person over 3.


Sure, you also have s199 too, which is enormously valuable every year. The credits for extra kids isn't something that concerns me (see above) because I believe the code needs to flatten to get as much of the gamesmanship out as possible.
 
The federal, state, and local governments pick winners and losers a thousand times a day. Our tax code needs to get flatter, not more convoluted and part of that means slowly getting rid of deductions (all of them). This is part of that. You apparently care because your sacred cow took a beating, but as a net result you should have come out way ahead if your taxes resemble what you claim to be around here.

Sure, you also have s199 too, which is enormously valuable every year. The credits for extra kids isn't something that concerns me (see above) because I believe the code needs to flatten to get as much of the gamesmanship out as possible.

It's weird that you reference the Sec. 199A deduction in the same paragraph that you say the code needs to flatten to get as much of the gamesmanship out as possible. Sec. 199A is literally picking winners and losers. If you get paid a salary, your tax rate on that income is higher than if you earn that income with a qualified business. If you earn income from a business NOT qualified, it's also higher than the rate paid by other "businesses." You get another tax benefit if your income is from capital gains, versus salary. If you want to "flatten" the code and end the gamesmanship, then income is income, regardless of source, taxed at the same rate. Instead you're advocating for more of the games that so happen to benefit the wealthy who can arrange their affairs to maximize QBI and capital gains versus salary.

And the point about the standard deduction is it might not matter to you, because your household income is something like $300k or greater. It might matter to someone making a third or fourth of that. What it appears like is you like tax policies that lower YOUR effective rate, but aren't too happy about those that might lower someone else's rate. That's fine, but there's no principle there.

Just take the SALT deduction. SALT is fully deductible by businesses but not by individuals, so if you can arrange your affairs and pay "business" income taxes to the state, you have no limits and those are deductible on your business return, but if you earn a wage, you can only deduct up to $10k. What's the principle behind that?
 
It's weird that you reference the Sec. 199A deduction in the same paragraph that you say the code needs to flatten to get as much of the gamesmanship out as possible. Sec. 199A is literally picking winners and losers. If you get paid a salary, your tax rate on that income is higher than if you earn that income with a qualified business. If you earn income from a business NOT qualified, it's also higher than the rate paid by other "businesses." You get another tax benefit if your income is from capital gains, versus salary. If you want to "flatten" the code and end the gamesmanship, then income is income, regardless of source, taxed at the same rate. Instead you're advocating for more of the games that so happen to benefit the wealthy who can arrange their affairs to maximize QBI and capital gains versus salary.

And the point about the standard deduction is it might not matter to you, because your household income is something like $300k or greater. It might matter to someone making a third or fourth of that. What it appears like is you like tax policies that lower YOUR effective rate, but aren't too happy about those that might lower someone else's rate. That's fine, but there's no principle there.

Just take the SALT deduction. SALT is fully deductible by businesses but not by individuals, so if you can arrange your affairs and pay "business" income taxes to the state, you have no limits and those are deductible on your business return, but if you earn a wage, you can only deduct up to $10k. What's the principle behind that?

To be clear, I am not saying I like the 199A, or that I think it is good policy. I am referencing that to point out that Jaeger is crying like he is getting molested by the TJCA when in fact he is very likely a large net beneficiary if he is anything like what he claims to be around here.

Someone making $100k, a third of the 300k postulated, is not exactly someone I am going to be looking to give even more tax breaks. This country has too many people paying little to nothing. If you are making 100k in gross income, you can afford 10% effective FIT.

As to business real estate vs. residential there is a fundamental difference. The business real estate tax is a business operating expense, full stop. The same reason why 99.9% of expenses a business incurs are deductible while very few are for an individual. An individual has deductions, a business has expenses. If I have to explain further than that, it's a moot point.
 
You got into the weeds by claiming that deductions off a federal return meant the government was subsidizing that expense. Don't blame me for proving you wrong and now you are trying to walk it back.

I'm out of the weeds now and I'm merely saying that the 10K cap on SALT only hurts the rich and by Democrats changing it, it would only benefit the rich.
 
To be clear, I am not saying I like the 199A, or that I think it is good policy. I am referencing that to point out that Jaeger is crying like he is getting molested by the TJCA when in fact he is very likely a large net beneficiary if he is anything like what he claims to be around here.

But it's not all about jaeger. You didn't object to the Sec. 179 deduction or the 199A tax break or the capital gains tax break - those benefit mostly the wealthy - but are really happy about deductions for ordinary people going away, including for dependents, and since you make $300k or more, the reasons are pretty obvious. You'd like to shift the tax burden downward. You've made that clear. That's fine, but the 95% or more making less than you might not agree.

Someone making $100k, a third of the 300k postulated, is not exactly someone I am going to be looking to give even more tax breaks. This country has too many people paying little to nothing. If you are making 100k in gross income, you can afford 10% effective FIT.

Sure, and from the perspective of someone making $75k, living in CA or NYC with a median home running $800k, and who can't deduct property taxes or income taxes over $10k, your family that makes $300k can afford to pay more too. If what matters is what's good for YOUR goose, then let's just say THAT and not try to make it about principles of horizontal or vertical equity with tax policy.

As to business real estate vs. residential there is a fundamental difference. The business real estate tax is a business operating expense, full stop. The same reason why 99.9% of expenses a business incurs are deductible while very few are for an individual. An individual has deductions, a business has expenses. If I have to explain further than that, it's a moot point.

I specifically referenced INCOME taxes for a reason, and my ability to deduct income taxes depends on whether I arrange my affairs to get paid a salary or from a qualified business. If the latter, those INCOME taxes are deductible without limits. Those aren't operating expenses like wages or paper or cost of goods sold - the income tax deduction differences condition deductions on how you earned your income, and provide income tax preferences to some source of income over others. The SALT deduction avoids what is a tax on a tax, what individuals pay to state and local governments have been deductible for a long time based on that principle, at least in part.

In the bigger picture, we have itemized deductions in part because of some notion of ability to pay and horizontal equity. It's not the only reason we have them, but ONE idea for itemized deductions, including SALT, is taxes paid to state and local government are not optional and reduce someone's ability to pay federal income taxes. Same with dependents. We don't have children and our ability to pay income taxes greater than a family like my brother's with 5 children, or families who take care of elderly parents, or suffer big casualty losses or who pay $40k in medical expenses because mom got breast cancer, or dad had a heart attack. These aren't clothes or trips or steak dinners or other discretionary spending, but spending that reduces families' ability to pay income taxes. Why shouldn't families with higher non-discretionary spending pay more in income taxes than families with less?
 
Last edited:
Well.. apparently its just not democrats now is it? .. when you have republicans spouting off how deducting state income taxes off your federal return is somehow the federal government SUBSIDIZING the state taxes. And that's how they justify raising taxes on folks in high income tax states. States that for the most part, send more dollars to the federal government than they take in.

Meanwhile their money gets redistributed to generally red states that send less to the federal government than they take in.

Unfortunately, politicians from both parties get caught up in the business of politics in DC. Politicians get big donations from special interest groups and then feel obligated to do those donors favors. America has been bleeding wealth from wasteful spending wounds for decades and the patient is getting worse. If we don't find a way to stop the bleeding America as we know it will die.
 
Unfortunately, politicians from both parties get caught up in the business of politics in DC. Politicians get big donations from special interest groups and then feel obligated to do those donors favors. America has been bleeding wealth from wasteful spending wounds for decades and the patient is getting worse. If we don't find a way to stop the bleeding America as we know it will die.

Its starts with people speaking up against abuses regardless of what party does it. You can see that's currently not going to happen with republicans falling all over themselves justifying the government using the tax system to punish blue states.
 
The federal, state, and local governments pick winners and losers a thousand times a day. Our tax code needs to get flatter, not more convoluted .

Well except you just supported making the tax code more convoluted.

You apparently care because your sacred cow took a beating, but as a net result you should have come out way ahead if your taxes resemble what you claim to be around here.
well first I live in a red state.. you know.. one that gets more from the government than we put in..and I benefit from really low state taxes.

I do just fine when it comes to taxes. I am not complaining because I got hurt... I am complaining because as a conservative.. I don't believe that taxes should be used as a political tool to discourage states from taking care of their own state FIRST..

Instead of keeping state taxes low..and then relying on the federal government to redistribute those taxes back to my state.. or worse getting money from other states.

But I understand that most people today that call themselves "conservatives"... don't understand things like integrity, personal responsibility etc.
 
Its starts with people speaking up against abuses regardless of what party does it. You can see that's currently not going to happen with republicans falling all over themselves justifying the government using the tax system to punish blue states.

You might contact a few democrats in Congress and see if you can talk them into going back to work for the American people to do what they can to straighten out the tax code mess. And I'm not talking about hiring Lois Lerner back to get the job done either, because she was part of the partisan hack problem, not the cure. So was tax cheat Timmy Geithner.
 
You might contact a few democrats in Congress and see if you can talk them into going back to work for the American people to do what they can to straighten out the tax code mess. And I'm not talking about hiring Lois Lerner back to get the job done either, because she was part of the partisan hack problem, not the cure. So was tax cheat Timmy Geithner.

Well.. I am a republican and I have a hard enough time getting republicans to talk them into going back to work for the American people. They just created a bigger tax code mess with the Trump tax cuts.

Not to mention blowing up the deficit with an unneeded tax cut.
 
But it's not all about jaeger. You didn't object to the Sec. 179 deduction or the 199A tax break or the capital gains tax break - those benefit mostly the wealthy - but are really happy about deductions for ordinary people going away, including for dependents, and since you make $300k or more, the reasons are pretty obvious. You'd like to shift the tax burden downward. You've made that clear. That's fine, but the 95% or more making less than you might not agree.

For the third time, I support a flatter code with less games. When pointing out the various deduction options that is to counter the idea that SALT limitations somehow hurt people in the TJCA while ignoring all the benefits.

Who exactly are you trying to exempt from taxes? When should people start paying taxes? What you seem to be saying is that the only people who should be paying taxes are the wealthy. Expecting someone who makes $100k/yr to pay a 10% FIT is hardly some draconian line. The reality is that the left has convinced their party that there is some massive tax inequity going on when in reality the rich are paying a little bit less in effective FIT compared to historically while the middle and lower class are getting far larger proportional cuts.


Sure, and from the perspective of someone making $75k, living in CA or NYC with a median home running $800k, and who can't deduct property taxes or income taxes over $10k, your family that makes $300k can afford to pay more too. If what matters is what's good for YOUR goose, then let's just say THAT and not try to make it about principles of horizontal or vertical equity with tax policy.

Let's keep pretending that the guy making $75k in California is buying an 800k house for a moment. That person doesn't exist and if they did they made themselves house poor as hell with those choices. More accurately that person would need to make $150k to afford an 800k house. CA property taxes usually aren't bad I thought? So figure 1% of value or $8k along with another ~$10k in state income taxes So they are losing 8k in itemized deductions but making a chunk of it up on itemized deductions, wider brackets etc. Again, the idea that the middle class is somehow getting burned here defies math.


In the bigger picture, we have itemized deductions in part because of some notion of ability to pay and horizontal equity.

They do, much more. The SALT limitation hits extremely wealthy people in high tax states. It isn't hitting middle class folks regularly and it if so very lightly. Just look at the number of people who itemized in 2017 and then in 2018. The simple data on who itemizes indicates it is upper middle class people and up. This isn't some sort of screwing to the plumber or teacher. Moreover, when did taxes become based on "ability to pay". So people chose to live in extremely expensive areas shouldn't pay the same tax rates? Or it's ok for 40% of households to pay no FIT? Why is it that the rich are not paying their fair share when they are paying more than their share of wealth, income, or by capita, but it is ok for ~half the country to pay little to no taxes and a huge chunk to get rebates in excess of their taxes?

Well except you just supported making the tax code more convoluted.

You can keep repeating your garbage about maker/taker states, but it is naive and ignorant as I have pointed out before though I realize facts bounce off you like a champ.

Federal taxes are less about redistribution and more about national programs. Where do you think the bulk of the federal money goes? Defense and entitlements. Those are not state level programs. This isn't a conspiracy to rob New York to pay Mississippi.

So I assume that, as a pretend ceo, entrepreneur, and physician you don't take any of these deductions? Yea right.
 
Well.. I am a republican and I have a hard enough time getting republicans to talk them into going back to work for the American people. They just created a bigger tax code mess with the Trump tax cuts.

Not to mention blowing up the deficit with an unneeded tax cut.

Billions of tax dollars have been flowing out of the Treasury into the foreign and/or domestic bank accounts of leftist socialist liberal and democrat foundations, trusts, NGOs and special interest organizations under the guise of doing good things. And democrats want more, which is why they want taxes raised from every business or person still not yet broken by excessive taxation.
 
Last edited:
But it's not all about jaeger. You didn't object to the Sec. 179 deduction or the 199A tax break or the capital gains tax break - those benefit mostly the wealthy - but are really happy about deductions for ordinary people going away, including for dependents, and since you make $300k or more, the reasons are pretty obvious. You'd like to shift the tax burden downward. You've made that clear. That's fine, but the 95% or more making less than you might not agree.



Sure, and from the perspective of someone making $75k, living in CA or NYC with a median home running $800k, and who can't deduct property taxes or income taxes over $10k, your family that makes $300k can afford to pay more too. If what matters is what's good for YOUR goose, then let's just say THAT and not try to make it about principles of horizontal or vertical equity with tax policy.



I specifically referenced INCOME taxes for a reason, and my ability to deduct income taxes depends on whether I arrange my affairs to get paid a salary or from a qualified business. If the latter, those INCOME taxes are deductible without limits. Those aren't operating expenses like wages or paper or cost of goods sold - the income tax deduction differences condition deductions on how you earned your income, and provide income tax preferences to some source of income over others. The SALT deduction avoids what is a tax on a tax, what individuals pay to state and local governments have been deductible for a long time based on that principle, at least in part.

In the bigger picture, we have itemized deductions in part because of some notion of ability to pay and horizontal equity. It's not the only reason we have them, but ONE idea for itemized deductions, including SALT, is taxes paid to state and local government are not optional and reduce someone's ability to pay federal income taxes. Same with dependents. We don't have children and our ability to pay income taxes greater than a family like my brother's with 5 children, or families who take care of elderly parents, or suffer big casualty losses or who pay $40k in medical expenses because mom got breast cancer, or dad had a heart attack. These aren't clothes or trips or steak dinners or other discretionary spending, but spending that reduces families' ability to pay income taxes. Why shouldn't families with higher non-discretionary spending pay more in income taxes than families with less?

If you can afford an 800K home that you aren't doing to shabbily. I do pretty well but if I went into the bank wanting to buy an 800K home they would bust a gut laughing at me.
 
Its starts with people speaking up against abuses regardless of what party does it. You can see that's currently not going to happen with republicans falling all over themselves justifying the government using the tax system to punish blue states.

While I personally think it is funny that high taxed blue states took a big hit (because they deserve it) there is a downside to this that Republicans haven't considered. If Democrats move out of these high taxed blue states to lower taxed red states then democratic votes will be added to red states. It is a case sort of like be careful what you wish for. This could eventually come back to bite Republicans in the ass. However, I still believe that if blue states want to tax so much then they ought to be man and woman enough to pay the consequences of leveling those high taxes. Before the rich got a free ride on the high taxes by having the feds subsidize it so they didn't really have to pay it. As I said, it was a tax redistribution scheme. The blue state levels high taxes, but the those high taxes get written off on the federal return so, in effect, the federal government was paying the high state taxes, not the taxpayers so there was no pain for the rich. Now there is pain.
 
Last edited:
Well except you just supported making the tax code more convoluted.

well first I live in a red state.. you know.. one that gets more from the government than we put in..and I benefit from really low state taxes.

I do just fine when it comes to taxes. I am not complaining because I got hurt... I am complaining because as a conservative.. I don't believe that taxes should be used as a political tool to discourage states from taking care of their own state FIRST..

Instead of keeping state taxes low..and then relying on the federal government to redistribute those taxes back to my state.. or worse getting money from other states.

But I understand that most people today that call themselves "conservatives"... don't understand things like integrity, personal responsibility etc.

Where is the personal responsibility when the high taxes that are "paid" by the rich are returned right back through a federal deduction? Like I said in other posts, people should have to decide whether they want to live in a higher taxed state with lots of benefits and services or a lower taxed state with less benefits and services. Democrats want to take that decision away by having the feds pay their high taxes instead of the taxpayers themselves.
 
No.. the democrats want to make the taxes even regardless of whether you are rich person in a blue state or red state...

Then they they should lower the State taxes to make them even, not give them back something they voted to increase, hope the rest of us would "help them out".
 
Where is the personal responsibility when the high taxes that are "paid" by the rich are returned right back through a federal deduction? .

They are not "returned right back through a federal deduction. That's where you have a huge intellectual disconnect. That's like saying in your business.. you buy a new copier.. and your business gets "paid right back by the federal government".. because you deducted the expense of that copier on your federal income tax. There is no "getting paid back".. when you deduct an EXPENSE. Its an expense. that money is money that SHOULD not be taxed as income.. because.. its not sitting in your bank account.. it was PAID OUT.

Honestly.. it flabbergasts me that you don't seem to understand this point. How can you own a business and not understand this simple fact about taxes? Do you really think that when you deduct your expenses.. the government is returning your money?
 
Then they they should lower the State taxes to make them even, not give them back something they voted to increase, hope the rest of us would "help them out".

Wait.. so you are saying.. that as a conservative.. you want states to lower their state taxes.. so they now have to rely on the federal government to take care of them?

Like the red states do?

Please explain how as a conservative.. you want states to rely more on the federal government rather than take care of the needs within state.
 
They are not "returned right back through a federal deduction. That's where you have a huge intellectual disconnect. That's like saying in your business.. you buy a new copier.. and your business gets "paid right back by the federal government".. because you deducted the expense of that copier on your federal income tax. There is no "getting paid back".. when you deduct an EXPENSE. Its an expense. that money is money that SHOULD not be taxed as income.. because.. its not sitting in your bank account.. it was PAID OUT.

Honestly.. it flabbergasts me that you don't seem to understand this point. How can you own a business and not understand this simple fact about taxes? Do you really think that when you deduct your expenses.. the government is returning your money?

It's all a shell game. You know what I mean. Being technical doesn't change the point of the thread.
 
Wait.. so you are saying.. that as a conservative.. you want states to lower their state taxes.. so they now have to rely on the federal government to take care of them?

Like the red states do?

Please explain how as a conservative.. you want states to rely more on the federal government rather than take care of the needs within state.

Nope. I want the Blue States to pay the taxes they voted upon themselves.
 
It's all a shell game. You know what I mean. Being technical doesn't change the point of the thread.

No.. its not a shell game. When you buy a copier.. and you expense that on your taxes.. the government does not give you that money back.. they do not return any money to you. That money is gone.

The same when you pay your state taxes. You PAY those state taxes and poof.. that money is gone from you bank account.. the federal government does not turn around and put that money back into your bank account.

There is no shell game to it.
 
Nope. I want the Blue States to pay the taxes they voted upon themselves.

Well.. they are..

AND in doing so.. they are not only paying for what their state needs... BUT.. in the end.. the blue states end up sending MORE money to the federal government than they get back..

So the reality is the Blue states are taking care of themselves... AND helping to take care of the red states that GET more money from the federal government than they put in.

So.. as a conservative.. why do you want a system that makes red states MORE dependent.. and encourages blue states to become dependent on the federal government.
 
No.. its not a shell game. When you buy a copier.. and you expense that on your taxes.. the government does not give you that money back.. they do not return any money to you. That money is gone.

The same when you pay your state taxes. You PAY those state taxes and poof.. that money is gone from you bank account.. the federal government does not turn around and put that money back into your bank account.

There is no shell game to it.

Whatever you say. To be honest, I got tired of this thread many posts back. I really don't want to argue with you anymore about it. I actually respect you and your opinions even though sometimes we disagree on what type of apples we are looking at.
 
Back
Top Bottom