GOP Tax Proposal To Hit MU Boosters

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Voting for trump was an implicit endorsement of Paul Ryan's tax beliefs which have been widely known for nearly a decade. He has always disliked NJ/NY subsidizing their state tax burden on the back of the Federal Government.

Which of course is an intentional deception on his part.  NJ and NY pay far more in Federal taxes than they receive back.

[Pakuni]

Voting for trump was an implicit endorsement of Paul Ryan's tax beliefs which have been widely known for nearly a decade. He has always disliked NJ/NY subsidizing their state tax burden on the back of the Federal Government.

The guy in White House only asked that golf club ownership and commercial real estate retain their break. Every other break was in line to be chopped. This corporate tax cut legislation being drafted was common knowledge if you've paid some attention to the only reason Paul Ryan wakes up in the morning.

This is what they voted for last November.

I very much doubt the average Trump voter is/was aware of Paul Ryan's tax beliefs, much less considered them for one iota when voting last November.

[Golden Avalanche]

Which of course is an intentional deception on his part.  NJ and NY pay far more in Federal taxes than they receive back.

Paul Ryan leaving out critical details to demonize a segment of America so that he can pass tax cuts?!?!

I'm shocked, shocked, that there is gambling taking place in this establishment.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I very much doubt the average Trump voter is/was aware of Paul Ryan's tax beliefs, much less considered them for one iota when voting last November.

^This

[Golden Avalanche]

I very much doubt the average Trump voter is/was aware of Paul Ryan's tax beliefs, much less considered them for one iota when voting last November.

You will not find me disagreeing with the notion that the American electorate is resoundingly ignorant.

[MUBurrow]

This just doesn't make sense.  The states that have high local and state taxes offer more services, and are net payers into the federal tax system.  Those states get less money back than they put in. 

The states with low local and state taxes offer fewer services, that are largely financed by federal tax dollars.  Meaning the people in high-tax states are funding the low tax states. 

That would make the low tax states less fiscally responsible as they are taking money from others just to get by.  This rewards them even more for doing that.  Your's is not an unpopular opinion, its just a very inaccurate one.

At a practical level I can acknowledge that you're correct. My argument for eliminating the SALT deduction is akin to the argument we'd be better off decoupling health insurance from employment. It would lead to a more straightforward cost/benefit analysis in the long run, and shine a light on a lot of the dark corners and political hiding spots in our system - but good luck actually doing it.

The downside to the current system is that as you said, it allows states to operate programs that are subsidized by the federal tax base, that provide services its own local tax base can't afford/doesn't want to pay for. Then it uses the SALT deduction as a wink and a nod to the higher payers into that federal base, to ostensibly allow them to pay for nice stuff at home. My frustration, I suppose, is that whole system clouds how governments at all levels actually pay for things, making the connections between taxing and spending even more tenuous and confusing for the common person.

[Pakuni]

You will not find me disagreeing with the notion that the American electorate is resoundingly ignorant.

It's not so much a matter of ignorance - though undoubtedly a lot of voters are that - but rather that tax policy was not an issue that drove voters to the polls last November, Trump voters in particular. They were driven by immigration, economic/trade protectionism and opposition to Obamacare and Hillary Clinton.

[MU82]

NM

[Herman Cain]

Why? The estate tax doesn't hit the person making the money it but rather the person receiving money without working for it (usually). It's a misconception. The person would be better off spending every last penny because then the money is actually used in the economy rather than hoarded by a few.

That doesn’t take into the risk it takes to make an outsized gain.  Guys who build valuable enterprises look at risk reward and then decide what posture to take , aggressive or conservative. Every case is different .  The business builder sees the govt as the ultimate no risk beneficiary of everything he/she does. At a certain point one just stops creating new value if the risk/reward posture is skewed. At a certain stage time is not in your favor.

[jesmu84]

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2017-11-21/tax-loopholes-for-wall-street-s-wealthiest-loom-in-house-bill

[rocket surgeon]

i will let this speak for itself-and he(44) didn't even give us a "tax cut"

  "President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn’t quite match up."

  "In other words, inequality has been even more pronounced under Obama than it was under George W. Bush."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/income-inequality-obama-bush_n_1419008.html

[tower912]

Which has nothing to do with the discussion of this tax proposal.

[Jay Bee]

JB, curious why you didn't advocate banning the previous posters. I waited to say a single word related to politics in this obviously political thread until numerous other posters - including you - did.

No. I stated a fact. That Obama's budget included the same thing as this topic is discussing. It's been brought forth before, including by the most recent President's regime.

What you do is stuff like this: "GOP tax cuts are always based on the premise that massive tax relief for rich people will spur dramatic economic growth.

Republicans hate legislation that adds to the deficit"

You're directing hyperbole and lies at a particular party (which I am not a member of, btw). It's obviously against the rules of the board and you know it. Yet love it, and try to equate it with someone noting that trying to remove the 80/20 rule has been done before and very recently.

Sad!

[MU82]

No. I stated a fact. That Obama's budget included the same thing as this topic is discussing. It's been brought forth before, including by the most recent President's regime.

What you do is stuff like this: "GOP tax cuts are always based on the premise that massive tax relief for rich people will spur dramatic economic growth.

Republicans hate legislation that adds to the deficit"

You're directing hyperbole and lies at a particular party (which I am not a member of, btw). It's obviously against the rules of the board and you know it. Yet love it, and try to equate it with someone noting that trying to remove the 80/20 rule has been done before and very recently.

Sad!

OK, you disagree with me. And you don't like politics here. I get it. I still don't get the general hostility toward me, even when the subject isn't politics. I'm a pretty good guy, a fellow alum, I'm not a troll, and I've certainly got nothing against you.

As for this thread, I clearly was not the initiator of the political discussion here. There were 21 comments before mine (not including my "in before the lock" post high up in the thread). Of those 21, at least a dozen were purely political. So I chimed in. And that is typical of the only times I have chimed in for quite some time now.

But you know what? I will try to show even more restraint in the future. For you, JB.

If we don't talk again, have a great Thanksgiving. Ring out Aloha! (trademark pending)

[#TheThing]

OK, you disagree with me. And you don't like politics here. I get it. I still don't get the general hostility toward me, even when the subject isn't politics. I'm a pretty good guy, a fellow alum, I'm not a troll, and I've certainly got nothing against you.

As for this thread, I clearly was not the initiator of the political discussion here. There were 21 comments before mine (not including my "in before the lock" post high up in the thread). Of those 21, at least a dozen were purely political. So I chimed in. And that is typical of the only times I have chimed in for quite some time now.

But you know what? I will try to show even more restraint in the future. For you, JB.

If we don't talk again, have a great Thanksgiving. Ring out Aloha! (trademark pending)

Aren't politics not supposed to happen here.  Very inconsistent it appears.  Is there a rule or is there not a rule?  Inquiring minds want to know.

[MU82]

Aren't politics not supposed to happen here.  Very inconsistent it appears.  Is there a rule or is there not a rule?  Inquiring minds want to know.

I wasn't talking to you. You've been banned.

[#TheThing]

I wasn't talking to you. You've been banned.

What are you talking about? 

Says here, POLITICS FREE ZONE   http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=51888.0

Is it a free zone or isn't it?

[MU82]

What are you talking about? 

Says here, POLITICS FREE ZONE   http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=51888.0

Is it a free zone or isn't it?

Adios, McBannerson.

[mu03eng]

Question about the SALT discussion, why is it assumed that higher SALT states are providing higher services? Additionally, if that logic is correct should that not make that state more attractive so why should a state that is already more attractive than a low SALT state also need a federal carve out on tax deduction?

[warriorchick]

Question about the SALT discussion, why is it assumed that higher SALT states are providing higher services? Additionally, if that logic is correct should that not make that state more attractive so why should a state that is already more attractive than a low SALT state also need a federal carve out on tax deduction?

Exactly. 

Just because a state or a city spends more money than another one, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is providing more value to its residents.

Pretty sure the folks in Nashville are getting just as much "stuff" from the government as the ones in Chicago (if not more), and while they have a similar sales tax rate, they have no state income tax and property taxes that are a fraction of those in Chicago. 

[MUBurrow]

Additionally, if that logic is correct should that not make that state more attractive so why should a state that is already more attractive than a low SALT state also need a federal carve out on tax deduction?

So this is my real axe to grind on this, as well. Let's have an honest discussion about how much it costs to have nice things. And lets also be as transparent as possible about which of those nice things are coming from the federal tax base, and which are coming from SALT.  I think we have a lot of self-contained races to the bottom going on that have huge effects on standards of living, and the confusing morass of how things are paid for/administered between the feds and states has a lot to do with it.

[Golden Avalanche]

i will let this speak for itself-and he(44) didn't even give us a "tax cut"

  "President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn’t quite match up."

  "In other words, inequality has been even more pronounced under Obama than it was under George W. Bush."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/income-inequality-obama-bush_n_1419008.html

Inequality has been steadily rising for the last 25 years. It will rise under trump. It will rise under his successor. And it will rise under his successor's successor even higher.

If you equate tax cuts as economic fairness the three Presidents who enacted the largest tax cuts in modern American history are Reagan, Truman, and Obama. So they must be economic warriors, right?

When you repeatedly go about lying it hampers any attempt to take you seriously as an individual.

[mu03eng]

So this is my real axe to grind on this, as well. Let's have an honest discussion about how much it costs to have nice things. And lets also be as transparent as possible about which of those nice things are coming from the federal tax base, and which are coming from SALT.  I think we have a lot of self-contained races to the bottom going on that have huge effects on standards of living, and the confusing morass of how things are paid for/administered between the feds and states has a lot to do with it.

It's almost as if governments(i.e. politicians) have incentive to not be forthcoming with their constituents. Weird

[GB Warrior]

It's almost as if governments(i.e. politicians) have incentive to not be forthcoming with their constituents. Weird

+1984

[Jockey]

Exactly. 

Just because a state or a city spends more money than another one, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is providing more value to its residents.

Pretty sure the folks in Nashville are getting just as much "stuff" from the government as the ones in Chicago (if not more), and while they have a similar sales tax rate, they have no state income tax and property taxes that are a fraction of those in Chicago.

Generally, those in red states get more "stuff" from the Feds while those in blue states get more from state government.