quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
I have a question for you:
Why should someone in NY or CA who earns the exact same amount of income pay less federal tax than someone in MO or TN?

Winner Winner, Chicken Dinner. This question sums up this whole thing for me. Someone making $250k in CA has been paying less to the federal gvmt than someone making $250k from MO or TN. (based on income tax).

That said, Taxes are too high across the board, at all levels. But can we all at least have a level playing field?

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
But can we all at least have a level playing field?

We do. Its just that some playing fields are more level than others.

^^^^^^^^

Leveling the field among states is a good place to start. Next let's get after all the other inequities in the tax code.

Assuming equal income: Why should married couples get breaks when they unquestionably utilize more resources than an individual? Why should adding more children to the school district mean you should pay LESS? Why do different mortgage interest rates on two homes of equal value make a difference in the taxes one pays?

We need to stop using the tax code to reward/punish.

We are in agreement, other states should not subsidize program expenditure of others.

However, what does that have to do with calling all NY'rs Communists?

It is offensive to be called a Communist.

I see that as making a political issue personal.

Folks, NYS is more than NYC the 5 Boroughs and Buffalo.

If you dare take a look at the voting map of NYS, you will see, counties are predominantly Red.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Originally posted by kz1000:

quote:

Originally posted by BillyBonesNY:
Note: Not all that live in NYS or CA are "Commie Fucks".

Thank you. My parents are getting screwed by this.

OK... fair enough. Not all that live in NYS or CA are "Commie Fucks". I agree.

However.... I have a question for you:
Why should someone in NY or CA who earns the exact same amount of income pay less federal tax than someone in MO or TN?

Lighten up Francis. It’s just like everybody in California is a fruitcake and everyone in Ohio is a staunch union auto worker. It’s the great stereotypes we get to live with. We all know stereotypes are easy and do not apply to all.

Signed, a non staunch union auto worker.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Frankly, calling folks names because they take advantage of what is allowed by the tax laws is counterproductive. Virtually all of us are overtaxed and it makes no sense to avoid taking whatever reductions that are legal--to do so is foolish. I frankly would support going back to taxation as originally planned--a fixed fee for every land owner--but that is not going to happen. Assuming that every citizen living in the USA has the same legal opportunities, I'd also support a fixed fee for every citizen, but that isn't going to happen, either. Any scheme where the rich and poor pay the same cannot fly, because the tax just cannot be high enough to support what the government is expected to do (even if stripped of all the welfare stuff).

That being the case, I try to support Congress critters who will craft tax programs I can tolerate, and then will attempt to use any provisions that will reduce what I have to pay. And I don't feel bad about doing it.

flashguy

But you see it is better for the big-govt folks to have us focused on class warfare and infighting amongst ourselves rather than to join together and recognize that the real problem is govt excess and excess govt.

Interestingly, the tax cut bill both levels the playing fiel between the states and lowers taxes across the board. Big win on both fronts. Now, if you are a shitbag CA or NY politician and have been soaking the heck out of your serfs^H^H^H^H^H, uh I mean residents, The you might be a little hot about this change that makes it more obvious that you have been soaking the crud out of your serfs. Sorry, but if you are a shitbag CA or NY politician, I couldn’t care less what you want.

quote:

Originally posted by SigMaverick:

If that were true (states taxed it's citizen's more because the tax was deductible), then it should be fair to assume those states will now lower tax rates.

I don't see any of those states reducing taxes, especially because the tax is not beneficial to the taxpayer.

Any US taxpayer who itemized deducted taxes. The amount deducted was primarily driven by income and financial resources, not the state in which they lived.

So while it is nice to say states are mean or nice, the federal government doesn't care, as President Trump proved a couple weeks ago, and Obama, Clinton, and the Bushes proved during their time in office as well.

There is ample recent evidence of change in behavior when taxes reach a tipping point. High tax pols have been tossed out on their ears, and tax policy changes when voters rise up. Another example is tax migration happening in many parts of the country, e.g. people fleeing MD to VA, CA to TX, NY to FL, etc. States can try to increase taxes to make up for the loss of revenue or lower taxes to stem the tide, only one of those will work. Your assumption that people don't pay attention to how much they are paying in state and local taxes, they are stupid or don't care is simply incorrect.

quote:

Originally posted by jigray3:

quote:

Originally posted by SigMaverick:

If that were true (states taxed it's citizen's more because the tax was deductible), then it should be fair to assume those states will now lower tax rates.

I don't see any of those states reducing taxes, especially because the tax is not beneficial to the taxpayer.

Any US taxpayer who itemized deducted taxes. The amount deducted was primarily driven by income and financial resources, not the state in which they lived.

So while it is nice to say states are mean or nice, the federal government doesn't care, as President Trump proved a couple weeks ago, and Obama, Clinton, and the Bushes proved during their time in office as well.

There is ample recent evidence of change in behavior when taxes reach a tipping point. High tax pols have been tossed out on their ears, and tax policy changes when voters rise up. Another example is tax migration happening in many parts of the country, e.g. people fleeing MD to VA, CA to TX, NY to FL, etc. States can try to increase taxes to make up for the loss of revenue or lower taxes to stem the tide, only one of those will work. Your assumption that people don't pay attention to how much they are paying in state and local taxes, they are stupid or don't care is simply incorrect.

I made no assumptions as to the stupidity of any resident of any state.

In fact, I implied the exact opposite.

If Trump says you get even more free money to make bastards, more people are gonna make bastards.

My initial point was if you cherry pick your deductions and/or credits, and you are happy your entitlements didn't get fucked or were even expanded, and simultaneously you have even more joy someone else got fucked, then you are FSA.

I stand by that statement.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/...ve-half-12508742.php

California Democrats want businesses to give half their tax-cut savings to state

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers are targeting the expected windfall that companies in the state would see under the federal tax overhaul with a bill that would require businesses to turn over half to the state.

A proposed Assembly Constitutional Amendment by Assemblymen Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento, and Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, would create a tax surcharge on California companies making more than $1 million so that half of their federal tax cut would instead go to programs that benefit low-income and middle-class families.

“Trump’s tax reform plan was nothing more than a middle-class tax increase,” Ting said in a statement. “It is unconscionable to force working families to pay the price for tax breaks and loopholes benefiting corporations and wealthy individuals. This bill will help blunt the impact of the federal tax plan on everyday Californians by protecting funding for education, affordable health care, and other core priorities.”

As a constitutional amendment, the bill would require approval from two-thirds of the Legislature to pass, a difficult hurdle now that Democrats have lost their supermajority. If passed and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, it would then go to voters for final approval.

Democrats lost their supermajority following resignations of two Assembly Democrats, Matt Dababneh of Encino (Los Angeles County), and Raul Bocanegra of San Fernando Valley (Los Angeles County) amid sexual misconduct allegations. Another Assembly Democrat, Sebastian Ridley-Thomas of Los Angeles, resigned citing health issues. In the Senate, Democrat Tony Mendoza of Artesia (Los Angeles County) is taking a leave of absence pending an investigation into sexual misconduct allegations.

California Democrats have been exploring ways to help those in the state who could end up paying higher federal taxes next year under the Republican tax overhaul.

The GOP overhaul caps state income taxes and local property tax write-offs on the federal income tax return at $10,000, a move expected to hurt high-local-tax states such as California, where the average state and local tax write-off in 2016 was $22,000.

State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León introduced legislation this month that would allow Californians to get around the state and local tax cap with a voluntary donation to a charitable fund created by the state of any amount of owed taxes above $10,000. That donation — in lieu of taxes — would allow donors to write off the gifts on their federal tax returns.

^^^^ Affected companies, short of relocating elsewhere, ought to take out full page newspaper ads about how their plans to share the windfall with their employees will go out the window due to this nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by bubbatime:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/...ve-half-12508742.php

California Democrats want businesses to give half their tax-cut savings to state...

Mr Bubba, after reading that my head almost exploded. Except it exploded a long time ago from CA lunatic politics.

quote:

. . . State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León introduced legislation this month that would allow Californians to get around the state and local tax cap with a voluntary donation to a charitable fund created by the state of any amount of owed taxes above $10,000. That donation — in lieu of taxes — would allow donors to write off the gifts on their federal tax returns.

I wonder just how much of such "donation" to a state controlled charity would actully and truly help the needy, vs how much would be eaten by politicians and bureaucrats.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
One of their ideas is to screw around with their state income tax law so the state income tax paid becomes a charitable contribution to the state, and hence federally deductible.

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/e...itable-contributions
"If you receive a benefit because of your contribution such as merchandise, tickets to a ball game or other goods and services, then you can deduct only the amount that exceeds the fair market value of the benefit received."

Theoretically, all taxpayers in the state will "receive a benefit" from that "contribution," in the form of services provided by the state.

However, I will note that "the United States or any state, the District of Columbia, a U.S. possession (including Puerto Rico), a political subdivision of a state or U.S. possession, or an Indian tribal government or any of its subdivisions that perform substantial government func­tions," are considered charitable organizations by the IRS. (see IRS Publication 526)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DMF,

I may have misunderstood this, but so far I hear states trying to screw over the feds on taxes. Now, I may be wrong, but IIRC, doesnt the federal government have the right to tax the people? So what are they crying over? You lost. The votes didnt go your way. Now play ball or play prison. Your call

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
One of their ideas is to screw around with their state income tax law so the state income tax paid becomes a charitable contribution to the state, and hence federally deductible.

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/e...itable-contributions
"If you receive a benefit because of your contribution such as merchandise, tickets to a ball game or other goods and services, then you can deduct only the amount that exceeds the fair market value of the benefit received."

Theoretically, all taxpayers in the state will "receive a benefit" from that "contribution," in the form of services provided by the state.

However, I will note that "the United States or any state, the District of Columbia, a U.S. possession (including Puerto Rico), a political subdivision of a state or U.S. possession, or an Indian tribal government or any of its subdivisions that perform substantial government func­tions," are considered charitable organizations by the IRS. (see IRS Publication 526)

"Charitable contributions" are voluntary. Does that mean that one could refuse to pay the "tax" that had been so described?

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:"Charitable contributions" are voluntary. Does that mean that one could refuse to pay the "tax" that had been so described?

flashguy

I think the game they are playing is that you would have the full taxes you owe offset by this "donation".

what would happen at the state level if the businesses collectively refused?

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:"Charitable contributions" are voluntary. Does that mean that one could refuse to pay the "tax" that had been so described?

flashguy

I think the game they are playing is that you would have the full taxes you owe offset by this "donation".

You mean they'd write the state tax law to allow full tax credit for a voluntary "contribution" to the state in that amount? I guess that might be legal (as the laws stand now) but surely the feds could find some way to counter it.

flashguy

quote:

I guess that might be legal (as the laws stand now) but surely the feds could find some way to counter it.

Bingo. If the Republican-controlled Congress had the collective will to push the Tax Bill through, they'll have the collective will to fix this, too.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:"Charitable contributions" are voluntary. Does that mean that one could refuse to pay the "tax" that had been so described?

flashguy

I think the game they are playing is that you would have the full taxes you owe offset by this "donation".

You mean they'd write the state tax law to allow full tax credit for a voluntary "contribution" to the state in that amount? I guess that might be legal (as the laws stand now) but surely the feds could find some way to counter it.

flashguy

I'm not sure that would work. If you receive anything in return for a charitable contribution, you are supposed to deduct that from the amount that you write off. For instance, if you go to a $50 rubber chicken dinner that had an actual value of $20, you are only supposed to write off $30. If you make a donation over $250, the charity is supposed to give you an acknowledgement letter stating that you donated $XX and didn't receive anything of value in exchange, or that you donated $XX and received $YY of value in exchange. The state would have a hard time saying that you didn't receive anything of value in exchange when they let you out of paying your state income taxes.