For the "To Hell With the Rich " crowd...
- Thread starter EERs 3:16
- Start date
You realize that eliminating SALT deduction limits makes the rich people in California and New York richer, too, don't you?
So does lowering taxes and lowering corporate taxes. Its just when Pelosi does it to help her donors you dont call it tax cuts for the rich.
Wrong as usual. Lowering individual taxes increases spending. Lowering corporate taxes increases stock buy back - we just witnessed it.
Best economy ever and you witnessed it. Why should the rest of the country subsidize extreme SALT of other states.
[roll]
I can't imagine your rhetoric had it been Trump that did it. You leftists are so predictable, hypocritical, mad as hell, full of hatred and spreading the hate.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
That's not even what trickle down is. Good god, you're a f'ucking moron. LMAO!
You're not even ashamed to publicly display just how f'ucking stupid you are. That's hilarious.
It depends what you mean by "middle class," Coop. With the standard deduction now being $24,000 for a married couple filing jointly (thanks to your President), few "middle class" taxpayers itemize, which would be required to take deductions for SALT. The tax law changes simply screwed the Limousine Liberals in the blue states.
You're not even ashamed to publicly display just how f'ucking stupid you are. That's hilarious.
More people would itemize, (especially couples) if taxes weren't capped at $10,000. I also never understood why that scrapped employee deductions on the Schedule A.
The country is not just poors that think they're patriotic middle classers and millionaires
No need to be snobby, Coop. Your premise is faulty. Most of the "middle class" would not itemize, regardless of the amount of the cap on itemized deductions, due to the standard deduction having been increased substantially by the GOP.
The intelligent ones who pay a considerable amount in mortgage interest and/or interest on home improvement loans and give a considerable amount to charity would itemize, as I used to. You're out of your league, dude.
So a tax cut for the rich. Good to see you are OK with that now that Pelosi wants it.
Most of the poors that call themselves middle class I guess. Hard working Americans that pay taxes and pay their own expenses for work got screwed. I know anything past a bumper sticker is too much detail for a cuckeye.
The intelligent ones DON'T pay any interest on homes,cars,student loans( 2 UMD and 1 WVU out of state) or credit cards......I don't and have not for over 40 years. And.... BTW.....I still give enough to charity to be able to itemize.
You're out of your league, dude.
With interest rates as low as they have been, how many people would have interest payments that high? Last year we had a little over 23,500 in itemized deductions and took it and used that in the state return, cause it saved us more money. Our mortgage was $400,000 basically. The avg person could just about do their own taxes and save money that way.
Not being able to deduct legal expenses is going to screw me pretty substantially.
If you paid cash for your home, more power to you. But most everyone I know, including extremely smart people, have mortgages with interest.
True....but I'm not the one that usually comments and insults people about decisions they make......Bru and Country are the ones that do that ad nauseam .
I was only making a point.
It's not about your decisions, it's about your politics, sweety. Do you want an apology from me?
Did you see the personal attack thrown at me about 5 minutes after this post with the ******** holier than thou attitude? This guy isn't worth conversing with on any subject at any time.
I've always said that middle class should be classified, based on where you're located. For example, I would consider myself to be upper middle class, working in an average cost of living area of the country. You take my exact family income, and give it to someone living in a nice area of California, and they're going to struggle to make ends meet. That's why the $24,000 deduction is flawed. It favors those in lower cost of living areas, whereas it totally destroys those that have to mortgage an $800,000 home that's nothing more than a **** shack. Those are the folks that need to itemize the most.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pe...les-including-her-district-with-salt-rollback
Pelosi and her husband have a property tax liability of approximately $198,337.62 considering their two homes, a winery and two commercial properties, public records show, indicating that the couple could reap substantial benefits in the event of a full SALT repeal.
Pelosi's 2020 property taxes in Washington, D.C. totaled $13,997.20 on her Georgetown condo and garage, valued at $1,646,730. Her San Francisco property taxes totaled $51,480.02 -- plus $47,631.98 from her Napa winery, $64,874.66 from a San Francisco commercial property, and $20,353.76 for another building. Property taxes for businesses and other commercial ventures generally have not been affected by SALT provisions.
Pelosi and her husband have a property tax liability of approximately $198,337.62 considering their two homes, a winery and two commercial properties, public records show, indicating that the couple could reap substantial benefits in the event of a full SALT repeal.
Pelosi's 2020 property taxes in Washington, D.C. totaled $13,997.20 on her Georgetown condo and garage, valued at $1,646,730. Her San Francisco property taxes totaled $51,480.02 -- plus $47,631.98 from her Napa winery, $64,874.66 from a San Francisco commercial property, and $20,353.76 for another building. Property taxes for businesses and other commercial ventures generally have not been affected by SALT provisions.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/salt-deduction-cap-good-policy/
part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Republicans capped the state and local tax (SALT) deduction at $10,000. This was an important provision as it helped offset revenue losses in the least harmful way possible. Most tax-reform advocates recognize that the SALT deduction is wasteful, inefficient, and regressive. This is why Reagan tried to eliminate it as part of the 1986 tax reforms. Nonpartisan advocates of tax reform should be celebrating Republicans’ recent success in chipping away at it.
This has not stopped some Democratic partisans from framing the SALT-deduction cap as part of a sinister plan to punish blue states. New York governor Andrew Cuomo called it a “dagger in the heart of New York and California.” Several blue states have introduced complex tax-evasion schemes in response, while their attorneys general have filed lawsuits over it. In a recent Bloomberg column, journalist Paula Dwyer went so far as to claim it part of “Trump’s war against blue states.” As evidence, Dwyer points to the disparate impact the cap will have on two blue states, New York and California, as compared with two red states, Mississippi and West Virginia — and concludes that partisanship is the obvious explanation.
part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Republicans capped the state and local tax (SALT) deduction at $10,000. This was an important provision as it helped offset revenue losses in the least harmful way possible. Most tax-reform advocates recognize that the SALT deduction is wasteful, inefficient, and regressive. This is why Reagan tried to eliminate it as part of the 1986 tax reforms. Nonpartisan advocates of tax reform should be celebrating Republicans’ recent success in chipping away at it.
This has not stopped some Democratic partisans from framing the SALT-deduction cap as part of a sinister plan to punish blue states. New York governor Andrew Cuomo called it a “dagger in the heart of New York and California.” Several blue states have introduced complex tax-evasion schemes in response, while their attorneys general have filed lawsuits over it. In a recent Bloomberg column, journalist Paula Dwyer went so far as to claim it part of “Trump’s war against blue states.” As evidence, Dwyer points to the disparate impact the cap will have on two blue states, New York and California, as compared with two red states, Mississippi and West Virginia — and concludes that partisanship is the obvious explanation.
You're sniffing glue again, CuntryTard. I know more about taxes than you know about your clients/inmates, so tread lightly to avoid my embarrassing you. Oh, and it's good to know that you're no longer itemizing, and now are taking advantage of the substantial standard deduction made available to you by the GOP. You're welcome.
It was actually one change in the tax code that I'm surprised Trump would have supported, considering his nature when it comes to law suits.
Really impacts any settlements that people are entertaining in civil suits.