[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Economy
See other Economy Articles

Title: A Conservative Tax Hike [ending state-tax deductions]
Source: National Review
URL Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic ... tax-real-estate-tax-california
Published: Oct 1, 2017
Author: Kevin D. Williamson
Post Date: 2017-10-01 22:13:25 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 1746
Comments: 28

President Donald Trump’s tax-reform plan is in total a very expansive steaming pile of irresponsibility — and the president’s argument that it will lead to sustained 6 percent economic growth is pure fantasy — but it does have one attractive provision: raising taxes on blue-state progressives.

The plan would eliminate the deductibility of state and local income taxes for federal tax purposes. In the highest bracket, Californians are paying 13.3 percent in state income taxes, and that money comes off the top when those high-earning Silicon Valley types are calculating federal taxes. In New York City, the Wall Street guys are paying 8.82 percent to the state and another 3.876 percent to the city, which lowers their taxable federal income by almost 13 percent on the marginal dollar.

Eliminating deductibility for state and local income taxes is of course politically satisfying for mean-spirited conservatives such as myself — it constitutes a very substantial tax increase on the sort of well-kept and comfortable lefty Californians and New Yorkers from whom we tend to hear more than maybe we really want to on all sorts of political issues. Rich Democrats in Santa Monica and on the Upper West Side think we should have higher taxes, and we knuckle-dragging right-wingers down in Texas and Florida disagree. This way, everybody gets what he wants.

You’re welcome.

Getting rid of state-tax deductibility is also good policy.

Like the mortgage-interest deduction, which the Trump plan unfortunately keeps (the president loves his real estate and is the self-proclaimed “king of debt”), the deduction for state and local taxes was intended to be a benefit to the middle class, i.e., the salt-of-the-earth voters who simultaneously are strongly in favor of an active welfare state and strongly disinclined to pay for it. (American progressives who favor European-style social-welfare systems should take a look at the middle-class tax rates in Sweden or Norway, and then imagine the howling American mob they would face if they tried to replicate that necessary aspect of Eurotopia at home.) The entitlement-hungry/tax-averse middle class could use a kick in the shins — if you want to take the ride, you’ve got to buy the ticket — but in reality the state-tax and mortgage-interest deductions mainly benefit higher-income households. That’s not surprising: High-income households make a lot of money, often have larger mortgages (at least in absolute terms), and, to no one’s surprise, pay most of the taxes, both at the federal level and at the state and local levels. If you are paying the highest rate in California, you have a seven-figure income, so that deduction is really helpful against your federal tax burden. Less so if you make $50,000 a year.

The federal government uses the tax code for all sorts of social-engineering purposes: to encourage and subsidize investment in manufacturing or green-energy businesses, to reward charitable giving, to encourage homeownership. The federal government is not very good at social engineering: Its efforts to help low-income Americans with bad credit borrow money to buy houses they could not afford was a significant contributor to the subprime meltdown and financial crisis of 2008–2009. Encouraging homeownership through subsidizing mortgage interest (which is what that deduction actually does) can encourage the wrong kind — the low-equity, high-interest kind — of homeownership. Likewise, offsetting state income taxes encourages states to jack up their levies: Because some costs are passed on to the federal treasury, Sacramento can get $1 in state income-tax revenue at a real cost to California taxpayers of less than $1.

That’s back-door tax-code welfare for big-spending Democrats.

The federal government really should not use the tax code to encourage or discourage any kind of behavior. It should use the tax code to raise the money necessary for the operation of the federal government in a way that minimizes economic damage and market distortion.

You don’t want to say this out loud in Texas, but it is not necessarily a bad thing for states to have income taxes, or even high income taxes. Different states fund their operations in different ways, and different states require different kinds of government. Massachusetts is not very much like Wyoming. Texas is very happy not to have an income tax, but its effective property tax rate is about twice California’s.

Of course, some states manage to offer the worst of both worlds: New Jersey residents pay high income taxes and high property taxes, as do the poor people of benighted Connecticut and eternally misgoverned Illinois. But, you know what? They have elections in those states.

The federal government should take a neutral stance on how states choose to fund their governments. Some have higher income taxes, some rely on property taxes. Some have higher sales taxes, and a few have no sales taxes at all. That really is not any business of the U.S. Treasury’s.

Conservatives and libertarians make a hobby out of dreaming up replacements for the current federal tax system — a national sales tax, a VAT, the so-called Fair Tax, financial-transaction taxes, etc. — and the tax code is in need of reform. But, realistically, what we have is what we’re probably going to have for the foreseeable future, at least in terms of the general revenue architecture: taxes on individual and business income, taxes on investment income, and certain excise taxes. The best, most direct, and most conservative course of action is simplifying the tax code we already have, reducing the number of brackets (down to one, preferably), and removing the various corporate-welfare and social-engineering schemes inserted into it over the years.

The states are responsible for themselves, and Californians and New Yorkers can and should be expected to pay the full cost of the governments they elect and the policies they support. The states remain, after all, sovereign, the dual sovereignty of the states and the federal government being one of the unique features of American government. That dual sovereignty has been eroded in past decades, and not only by the nationalizing passion of the progressives. In the midst of all this ghastly new talk of “nationalism” on the right, you can barely hear voices issuing forth from the graves of Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams, saying: “No, thanks!” But we have not gone so far down that road that the states have been reduced to mere administrative subdivisions of the federal government — even if they’ll ask to be treated as federal dependents when their unpayable pension bills come due.

California is very expensive by American standards and a bargain by world standards. As it turns out, people are pretty good at figuring that out: California has for some years been losing its native-born population to the other 49 states, but those emigrants are more than replaced by immigrants from around the world, many of them from places that make California look lightly taxed and well governed. (Which it is, by comparison with India or Venezuela.) That isn’t how I’d do things if I were the Emperor of Malibu, but Californians, so far, seem to be content with their own way of doing things. Let California be California.

And let Californians pay for it.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)

I think that is great! Why should they get a deduction to subsidize Communism?

Justified  posted on  2017-10-02   8:17:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Tooconservative (#0)

Take away the deductibility of state and local taxes - that's ok. Get rid of tax free municipal bonds also: if you earn interest, it should be taxed.

That's all fine. If you're going to let businesses deduct the interest they pay on loans, then you have to also permit homeowners to deduct the interest they pay for their homes.

And finally - and most importantly - the estate tax must remain in place. We don't want a hereditary nobility in America, and that is precisely what we will have if we have no estate tax.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-10-02   8:42:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Tooconservative (#0)

"but it does have one attractive provision: raising taxes on blue-state progressives."

Yes, and it raises taxes on blue-state conservatives, too. Like me. And if Trump's tax plan ONLY eliminated the deductibility of state and local income taxes I could live with that.

But it doesn't stop there. It also eliminates the deductions for medical expenses, real estate taxes, and the personal exemption. In 2016, just those four items amounted to a little over $20,000 in deductions for me. They're gone.

Since I itemize, increasing the standard deduction means nothing. Plus, increasing the rate from 10% on the first $50,000 to 12% means an additional tax of $1000.

We're both semi- retired and definitely middle class. The new tax plan -- as initially proposed -- sucks big time.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-10-02   11:04:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

estate tax must remain in place. We don't want a hereditary nobility in America ...

Yeah. We don't want this kid to get all uppity when he inherits his father's farm.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-10-02   11:11:54 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Tooconservative (#0)

I remember when we got to deduct state sales tax on our federal return. And interest on credit cards.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-10-02   11:14:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

I agree with you in broad terms.

There should be a single taxation standard with regard to deductability of state taxes. Either allow it for all or disallow it for all. No in-betweens based on shady political deals. Anything else is treating residents of various states as inherently unequal under federal tax laws.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-10-02   11:18:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: misterwhite (#3)

But it doesn't stop there. It also eliminates the deductions for medical expenses, real estate taxes, and the personal exemption. In 2016, just those four items amounted to a little over $20,000 in deductions for me. They're gone.

Since I itemize, increasing the standard deduction means nothing. Plus, increasing the rate from 10% on the first $50,000 to 12% means an additional tax of $1000.

It seems to me that those are separate issues entirely from the deductability of state income taxes.

I'm not saying you don't have legitimate concerns here. Just that these should be fairly resolved by Congress and subject to review by USSC for equal treatment under the law.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-10-02   11:20:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: misterwhite (#4)

Yeah. We don't want this kid to get all uppity when he inherits his father's farm.

This endless bitching about the treatment of family farms and inheritance is completely overblown.

Typically, it is used as an excuse to do nothing with tax law due to a vanishingly small number of "family" farms who might be impacted. The vast majority of family farms do not fall under such tax and inheritance provisions. This is nothing but an excuse to do nothing which favors continuing to allow very big farmers and corporate farms to continue to reap tax benefits under the shortcomings of current tax laws.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-10-02   11:23:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: misterwhite (#4)

Yeah. We don't want this kid to get all uppity when he inherits his father's farm.

The problem is not down there at the family farm level.

The median net worth of family farms in America is about $315,000.

The estate tax deduction is $5.5 million.

So, hardly any family farms are hit by the estate tax at all.

The estate tax hits large operations, over $5.5 million.

It isn't really the $5-10 million, or $20 million, or $50 million estates that are the problem.

The problem is the billionaires. That is where you will have your hereditary nobility without the estate tax.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-10-02   11:36:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Tooconservative (#7)

It seems to me that those are separate issues entirely from the deductability of state income taxes.

Separate? Why? They're all together in the tax reform package. You can't simply pooh-pooh the elimination of some minor tax deduction and ignore all the others included with it. As I said previously, if that was the only change I could live with it.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-10-02   11:39:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Tooconservative (#8)

The vast majority of family farms do not fall under such tax and inheritance provisions.

Fine. Then let's eliminate it. It's ridiculous for our country to encourage people to be successful then tax their estate at 40% when they die -- simply because they've succeeded.

If these farms are as big as you say, then they've been paying big taxes all their lives. Enough is enough. How about we cut spending instead?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-10-02   11:49:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

The problem is the billionaires.

So let's take 40% of what they own ... just because they're rich and we can.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-10-02   11:52:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: misterwhite (#11)

If these farms are as big as you say, then they've been paying big taxes all their lives. Enough is enough. How about we cut spending instead?

I'm saying that the big corporate farms and tycoon "farmers" are continuing to try to hide behind the idea of the "little family farms" in order to frustrate any tax reform at all.

I'm agreeable to cutting spending any time but that is a separate issue.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-10-02   12:00:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Tooconservative (#13)

You're putting the "little family farms" out of business. They started out small and, through hard work, grew to $5.5 million. Then you hit them with a 40% death tax and they have to sell assets to pay the tax. The farm goes out of business and sells what's left to the big guys. The tax code is making the big guys bigger.

The small farm isn't affected? Well, no, not until they hit $5.5 million. Then they go out of business. Stay under that figure and they're fine. Is that what we want? A bunch of small, inefficient farmers? Well, that's what we got.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-10-02   12:16:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: misterwhite (#14)

You're putting the "little family farms" out of business. They started out small and, through hard work, grew to $5.5 million.

I live in farm country, know lots of farmers.

Although farmers as a class are generally cash-poor and asset-rich and often do live and die in substantial debt, I know of no one who considers a farmer worth $5.5 million as a "little family farm" operation. No one.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-10-02   12:24:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Tooconservative (#15)

I know of no one who considers a farmer worth $5.5 million as a "little family farm" operation.

Farmland in Illinois sells for $10,000 an acre. The average size of an Illinois farm is 358 acres. That's $3.58 million in land alone. Add to that equipment, outbuildings, home, and farm income, and you're getting real close. Add the value of livestock it they have them.

"I don't think you know what you're talking about."

I live on a small farm in Illinois surrounded by multi-millionaire "little family farms". Their wealth is in their assets, not their production. Tax their net worth and they have no way to pay the tax without selling a portion of their assets.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-10-02   12:58:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: misterwhite (#16)

I live on a small farm in Illinois surrounded by multi-millionaire "little family farms". Their wealth is in their assets, not their production. Tax their net worth and they have no way to pay the tax without selling a portion of their assets.

Join the crowd. Lots of others have to sell or incur major debt to continue a family business inherited from parents.

It is no more discriminatory to make these requirements of a family farmer than to require them of the heirs of a series of fast food franchises or auto parts supply franchises.

People act as though there is something sacred or untouchable about inherited assets and businesses if they are of the sacred "family farm" category. There is no reason to treat them as a special case of inheritance or tax status. They should be treated as equal before the law, including tax law.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-10-02   13:13:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: misterwhite (#12)

So let's take 40% of what they own ... just because they're rich and we can.

If you're going to put it that way, then YES.

Truth is, they don't own anything anymore, because they're DEAD.

Billions of dollars in wealth means billions of dollars of power - political power - the sort of political power that allowed the billions to be amassed in the first place, because given taxation and regulation in America, billions are not amassed without a great deal of political patronage and protection and selective enforcement of regulation, and regulatory barriers to others entering.

Having that power inherited from generation to generation will certainly create a hereditary nobility, with everything that comes with it.

The "take it and redistribute it" of revolutionary democracy cut that off, and that's best for everybody but the nobility. (And they still do just fine.)

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-10-02   14:05:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Vicomte13 (#18)

Billions of dollars in wealth means billions of dollars of power - political power - the sort of political power that allowed the billions to be amassed in the first place

And still, we have the death tax. How is that possible?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-10-02   14:47:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Tooconservative (#17)

There is no reason to treat them as a special case of inheritance or tax status.

I agree. And I didn't mean to imply that they should be the sole beneficiaries of repeal.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-10-02   14:50:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: misterwhite (#14)

The small farm isn't affected? Well, no, not until they hit $5.5 million. Then they go out of business.

No they don't. And really it's $11 million - $5.5 million from each spouse.

$11 million companies can reserve and can buy insurance. At $12 million it's a 40% tax on 1 million, not a 40% tax on $12 million.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-10-02   15:07:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: misterwhite (#19)

And still, we have the death tax. How is that possible?

Corruption - the wealthy driving relentlessly to use political power to amass more and more.

Today, the great dodge is "charitable" foundations, which are self-licking ice cream cones. But the thing is, once the foundation is set up to dodge the tax, the assets are snared, and subject to account oversight, monitoring and regulation. The pure unadulterated power of the assets is diluted. 5% must be distributed annually.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-10-02   15:09:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: misterwhite (#16)

Fine. Raise the deduction to $20 million.

The key is that you cannot allow BILLIONS to pass between generations without estate taxation, or you will have a hereditary nobility, and that will mean the end of the meritocracy in short order...until you finally have another bloody revolution.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-10-02   15:11:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Vicomte13 (#22)

Corruption - the wealthy driving relentlessly to use political power to amass more and more.

Why don't they use their mighty political power to repeal the death tax?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-10-02   15:31:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Vicomte13 (#23)

The key is that you cannot allow BILLIONS to pass between generations without estate taxation, or you will have a hereditary nobility,

We no longer have nobles.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-10-02   15:34:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: misterwhite (#24)

Why don't they use their mighty political power to repeal the death tax?

They do.

But we are still democracy enough to understand that if we let them get away with it, we're really screwed.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-10-02   15:38:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: misterwhite (#25)

We no longer have nobles.

Repeal the estate tax and let time run its course, and we will.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-10-02   15:38:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Vicomte13 (#26)

But we are still democracy enough to understand that if we let them get away with it, we're really screwed.

Well, there ya go. They have no power.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-10-02   17:41:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com