patrick.net

I've said it in another thread (maybe this one - too lazy to look). I think this is a wang slap to the high tax (income and/or property) states. Not all, but generally democrat controlled/run.

The people hit the hardest aren't going to fight the Federal government on this. They're going to ask why the fuck are my property taxes so high? Why the fuck does Florida have 0 income taxes and I'm getting fucked in IL, NY, CA, etc? It's almost certain if people fight for these cuts on the state level or county level, they're going to get more money back in their pockets versus the Federal government removing the $10k cap.

If you're into the D and R battle, the R's just came on the D's face with this one if you ask me. Of all the smart ass comments about 4D, 7D, etc chess, this one might actually warrant that description. The R's can say it's technically a tax increase on the wealthy. The D's will go after the new corporate rate. And this thing just slides through without much debate.

In Northern IL where I'm at, there are a ton of high earning Democrats that aren't going to like this when they get their tax return or bill. Because they know the state is run like shit and the taxes collected are wasted for the most part here in IL. Republicans have already been fighting the high taxes. If they join forces, things can change rather quickly. At a minimum, tax increases in state income tax or property taxes are going to be looked at in a whole new light. The days of just passing a tax increase statewide probably just got a lot tougher.

WookieMan says

wang slap to the high tax (income and/or property) states

It definitely is. It's also a big FU to Dems who are in Congress serving those States. It's also a big plate of happy for Trump supporters who hate the rich city fucks.
It's not doing/going to do Trump any favors in the suburbs of many states.

I think it's a good overall play for CA, because a lot of taxpayer money goes to lefty lunatic causes and voter purchases through illegal immigrant amnesty and ghetto pimping.

That has to stop to make CA a viable place for the middle class again. My plan is to become way more involved in the state's budget.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

My family will still be penalized

Good! There should be penalties for voting Leftist!

I like this change, since I pay very little for property taxes ($1500) and a shitload of state income taxes (>10K). A $10,000 combined limit for the two is fairer and doesn't favor real estate like the previous version did.

zzyzzx says

I like this change, since I pay very little for property taxes ($1500) and a shitload of state income taxes (>10K). A $10,000 combined limit for the two is fairer and doesn't favor real estate like the previous version did.

WookieMan says

The people hit the hardest aren't going to fight the Federal government on this. They're going to ask why the fuck are my property taxes so high? Why the fuck does Florida have 0 income taxes and I'm getting fucked in IL, NY, CA, etc? It's almost certain if people fight for these cuts on the state level or county level, they're going to get more money back in their pockets versus the Federal government removing the $10k cap.

Bingo!

Why have certain states decided to depreciate the property tax, when it's the most stable form of taxation, far less volatile to swings in the Economy, and by it's very nature is Progressive?

anon_b9053 says

I think it's a good overall play for CA, because a lot of taxpayer money goes to lefty lunatic causes and voter purchases through illegal immigrant amnesty and ghetto pimping.

That has to stop to make CA a viable place for the middle class again. My plan is to become way more involved in the state's budget.

Good luck with that: these fucks are already toying with the idea of allowing charitable contributions in lieu of SIT and property taxes. Which will make them fully deductible.

PS. It's still not clear whether AMT for individual taxpayers would be repealed. At least I couldn't find the definitive answer.

WookieMan says

Not an accountant, but if I understand things correctly, the $10k cap doesn't even come into play until you itemize. So if you haven't itemized over $24k in the past, this really doesn't matter. But let's say you itemize $24k in other things, you'll still get the $10k on the state income/property taxes, $34k essentially. But if you only itemize say $14k in mortgage interest and other stuff, but have $20k in state property/income taxes, then the $10k above will be taxable income. Which depending on bracket isn't all that much in the grand scheme of these peoples earnings.

It sucks for a certain segment of the population for sure. Mainly high income, W-2 earners with with big or highly taxed houses. From an economic standpoint, I don't like it because it takes money out of the hands of people that are likely to spend the money in the economy and not hoard it. So this is a negative in the tax plan in my opinion. Kind of a big one for domestic tourism, auto industry, etc. ...

Why is it so important for money to trickle down from the rich instead of just letting the poor keep it in the first place? Just so the rich can buy even nicer things?

anon_fb813 says

Reminder: home ownership is one of the largest drivers of the US economy. Furniture, construction, repairs, maintenance, hardware, tools, landscaping, service workers, technology, entertainment, automobiles, toys for the young and old alike, and so on.

I agree. Now how do we get more people with lower incomes into houses? Wouldn't that be better then giving it back to those who already own homes?

WookieMan says

The days of just passing a tax increase statewide probably just got a lot tougher.

Isn't that a good thing? GET OUT OF IL!!

WorkInProgress says

Why is it so important for money to trickle down from the rich instead of just letting the poor keep it in the first place?

Define poor. And what does "letting them keep it" mean for somebody who's not paying any FIT in a context of FIT reform?

Satoshi_Nakamoto says

WorkInProgress says

Why is it so important for money to trickle down from the rich instead of just letting the poor keep it in the first place?

Define poor. And what does "letting them keep it" mean for somebody who's not paying any FIT in a context for FIT reform?

That's exactly it, almost half of the population pay ZERO in Federal taxes, are these the poor he speaks about? What should congress do, lower their taxes even more? Is there such thing as a negative tax rate on the IRS charts?

anon_945c8 says

Satoshi_Nakamoto says

WorkInProgress says

Why is it so important for money to trickle down from the rich instead of just letting the poor keep it in the first place?

Define poor. And what does "letting them keep it" mean for somebody who's not paying any FIT in a context for FIT reform?

That's exactly it, almost half of the population pay ZERO in Federal taxes, are these the poor he speaks about? What should congress do, lower their taxes even more? Is there such thing as a negative tax rate on the IRS charts?

Yes, there actually is: it's called "refundable tax credits". As in "refund for something you didn't pay".

anon_945c8 says

ZERO in Federal taxes

Those same people you refer to pay plenty in social security and medicare, which certainly counts. Especially if you consider that your overlords plan on running up the deficit and taking it away, so that they won't be getting much back on it.

It's subsidizing the tax cuts for the rich.

Satoshi_Nakamoto says

WorkInProgress says

Why is it so important for money to trickle down from the rich instead of just letting the poor keep it in the first place?

Define poor. And what does "letting them keep it" mean for somebody who's not paying any FIT in a context of FIT reform?

Keeping it as in higher wages and better benefits for the workers as opposed to huge accumulations of wealth that is supposed to trickle down. Why does it need to go up then back down, especially since people have been waiting 37 years and nothing has trickled down yet.

I'm not talking about government collecting and redistributing socialism. I'm talking about not having crony capitalism where the ultra rich own the government and treat it like their personal source of wealth.

Work in Progress - owning a house is not an entitlement. Hence, the lower the income, the less likely it will be to own a house especially in highly desirable locations. There are absolutely no issues with this. That is a market.

The point that is missed, is that homeowners pay way more tax than non-owners. They are literally floating the cost of shared services already, so when asked to "help the poor" even further it really is fucking annoying to listen to.

anon_945c8 says

Satoshi_Nakamoto says

WorkInProgress says

Why is it so important for money to trickle down from the rich instead of just letting the poor keep it in the first place?

Define poor. And what does "letting them keep it" mean for somebody who's not paying any FIT in a context for FIT reform?

That's exactly it, almost half of the population pay ZERO in Federal taxes, are these the poor he speaks about? What should congress do, lower their taxes even more? Is there such thing as a negative tax rate on the IRS charts?

Good point. But, I would counter with...If you need more taxes, where are you going to get it from, the people who have money or those who don't?

anon_fb813 says

Work in Progress - owning a house is not an entitlement. Hence, the lower the income, the less likely it will be to own a house especially in highly desirable locations. There are absolutely no issues with this. That is a market.

The point that is missed, is that homeowners pay way more tax than non-owners. They are literally floating the cost of shared services already, so when asked to "help the poor" even further it really is fucking annoying to listen to.

Where did I say it was an entitlement? Please don't make stuff up.

anon_fb813 says

The point that is missed, is that homeowners pay way more tax than non-owners. They are literally floating the cost of shared services already, so when asked to "help the poor" even further it really is fucking annoying to listen to.

You believe that somehow rental properties don't pay property taxes? Where do you live that they don't.

Quigley says

Mortgage interest write-offs up to $750,000 mortgages

I feel this one needs to be scaled down a lot. That's like paying wealthy people to buy expensive houses, not right.

WorkInProgress says

anon_945c8 says

Satoshi_Nakamoto says

WorkInProgress says

Why is it so important for money to trickle down from the rich instead of just letting the poor keep it in the first place?

Define poor. And what does "letting them keep it" mean for somebody who's not paying any FIT in a context for FIT reform?

That's exactly it, almost half of the population pay ZERO in Federal taxes, are these the poor he speaks about? What should congress do, lower their taxes even more? Is there such thing as a negative tax rate on the IRS charts?

Good point. But, I would counter with...If you need more taxes, where are you going to get it from, the people who have money or those who don't?

So we're clear on the "letting them keep it" part?

anon_08dee says

anon_945c8 saysZERO in Federal taxesThose same people you refer to pay plenty in social security and medicare, which certainly counts.

That wasn't the topic of the OP, stop with the straw man, the OP was about FEDERAL taxes. But since you brought it up, how much medicare/S.S taxes does someone making $20K a year pay versus someone making $100K?

anon_08dee says

It's subsidizing the tax cuts for the rich.

The rich SHOULD get a tax cut, they're the ones actually paying the bills right now. Once again, answer the question, should someone paying ZERO Federal taxes now, get a tax cut?

WorkInProgress says

That's exactly it, almost half of the population pay ZERO in Federal taxes, are these the poor he speaks about? What should congress do, lower their taxes even more? Is there such thing as a negative tax rate on the IRS charts?

Good point. But, I would counter with...If you need more taxes, where are you going to get it from, the people who have money or those who don't?

How about REDUCING spending to the amount of taxes collected? How's that for a novel idea?

Do you keep writing checks out of your checkbook when the available balance gets to zero? Do you keep ordering products and services knowing you don't have the income to support it?

Are these tough questions?

anon_fb813 says

The point that is missed, is that homeowners pay way more tax than non-owners. They are literally floating the cost of shared services already, so when asked to "help the poor" even further it really is fucking annoying to listen to.

Geez.... scary...

bob2356 says

You believe that somehow rental properties don't pay property taxes? Where do you live that they don't.

and these renters vote.... we're screwed...

anon_89d64 says

WorkInProgress says

That's exactly it, almost half of the population pay ZERO in Federal taxes, are these the poor he speaks about? What should congress do, lower their taxes even more? Is there such thing as a negative tax rate on the IRS charts?

Good point. But, I would counter with...If you need more taxes, where are you going to get it from, the people who have money or those who don't?

How about REDUCING spending to the amount of taxes collected? How's that for a novel idea?

Do you keep writing checks out of your checkbook when the available balance gets to zero? Do you keep ordering products and services knowing you don't have the income to support it?

Are these tough questions?

I certainly can agree with you..BUT, tell me when that is going to happen. Bwahahabababa

anon_89d64 says

anon_fb813 says

The point that is missed, is that homeowners pay way more tax than non-owners. They are literally floating the cost of shared services already, so when asked to "help the poor" even further it really is fucking annoying to listen to.

Geez.... scary...

bob2356 says

You believe that somehow rental properties don't pay property taxes? Where do you live that they don't.

and these renters vote.... we're screwed...

I think there is some truth to that. How, exactly, do you think "disaffected" people are going to vote? What America should REALLY want is widespread prosperity. Human nature is what it is. Are you going to change human nature? Let me ask you this...Is greed less evil than envy? I would say both are bad and are related.

anon_89d64 says

That wasn't the topic of the OP, stop with the straw man, the OP was about FEDERAL taxes. But since you brought it up, how much medicare/S.S taxes does someone making $20K a year pay versus someone making $100K?

The man making 1 million or 10 million pays exactly the same social security as the one making $127k.

anon_89d64 says

How about REDUCING spending to the amount of taxes collected? How's that for a novel idea?

Shall we start with department of defence since it is the biggest spender of tax money? Followed by department of agriculture, as in corporate agriculture welfare.

Reagan's Trickle-Down brought Personal Computers to every American household; Trickle-Downs of the 1990's and 2000's brought Internet and Cellphone to every American household. All three were banned or un-affordable in Cuba and North Korea.

Having a few dozen to a few hundred to a few thousands to a few million 1%er rich competing against each other is far better for the middle class and even the poor, than having "equality" under the Castro Family or Kim Family, or whatever socialist dictatorship and its attendant corps of bureaucrats that might control the resources and capital in the name of "the people" (but of course for the bureaucrats' own benefit).

What's impoverishing the American middle class and the poor has little to do with the typical rich that people can see in their own lives but mainly due to terrible government policies. For example, what makes rent so high in the few big coastal cities is not due to greedy landlords (who have to compete against other landlords) but due to the combination of government restrictions on building houses where a lot of people want to live and government housing subsidies taking existing units off the market.

Those on the left with only academic experience but little market experience seem to think someone 1000x richer means he eats 3000 hamburgers a day instead of your own 3 hamburgers a day (and all those hamburgs fall from the sky, so if he eats more, you eat less). On the contrary, the 1000x richer guy in the beef economy is the one owning the cattle ranch and producing the hamburgers more efficiently than alternative owners! and the current low interest rate making the current discount cash value of daily hamburger production especially high on paper. What jacks up your hamburger price is the government subsidy enabling someone just a little less rich than you to bid that hamburger out of your hand! If we take those hamburger ranches into government bureaucratic operation, like Zimbabwe did under Mugabe, the result would not be more hamburgers for you but far less hamburgers! perhaps even mass starvation, just like in Zimbabwe, North Korea, and historically every place that ever tried the brain dead ideas of over-educated socialists with little understanding of how market and economy work.

Those hamburgers do not fall from the sky. Someone has to be producing those hamburgs. Major increases in production need entrepreneurial risk-taking. Bureaucrats collecting fixed salaries and afraid of change can not deliver that, and will always fall behind people's ever rising expectations, especially aided by the ever-increasing laziness of fellow bureaucratic job holders. Only the incentive of getting rich, very rich!, can incentivize people to work 80+ hours a week in a smart way to deliver innovations like personal computers and smart phones and billions of internet sites that you can use today. Them getting rich is simply the market's way of giving working capital into the hands of those with a good track record of getting results. No, they do not eat 1000 times more hamburgers than you do; they are the ones raising cattles to make hamburgers and steaks, so perhaps someday the steak price can drop so much that you too can afford to eat steak!

Leaving money in the hands of those who know how to make money by catering to consumer demand is far better for consumers than taking that money away from the entrepreneurs and giving it to bureaucrats or even to consumers who would then jack up price for other consumers.

On vacation right now but checking to see how’s America latest scam is going. The last one was obummer and “change.”

What lure is the GOP and puss grabber are switching to now to bait voters.

I have been thinking of cancelling my return flight and never come back.

Reality says

Those on the left with only academic experience but little market experience seem to think someone 1000x richer means he eats 3000 hamburgs a day instead of your own 3 hamburgs a day (and all those hamburgs fall from the sky, so if he eats more, you eat less)

Just curious-the rich are eating German cities?

bob2356 says

hose on the left with only academic experience but little market experience seem to think someone 1000x richer means he eats 3000 hamburgs a day instead of your own 3 hamburgs a day (and all those hamburgs fall from the sky, so if he eats more, you eat less).

Joking aside, what the smart academics realize is that someone 1000x richer eats 3 hamburgers a day and hoards the rest of the cash, whereas if that 1000X wealth were spread over the entire population, there would actually be 3000 hamburgers or more eaten leading to more demand for beef and more jobs in the restaurant, more jobs on the farm, more jobs at the beef processers, etc. That's why high inequality is bad and leads to job losses and a crappy economy.

WorkInProgress says

anon_fb813 says

Reminder: home ownership is one of the largest drivers of the US economy. Furniture, construction, repairs, maintenance, hardware, tools, landscaping, service workers, technology, entertainment, automobiles, toys for the young and old alike, and so on.

I agree. Now how do we get more people with lower incomes into houses? Wouldn't that be better then giving it back to those who already own homes?

They already have shelter, what's the problem?

FortWayne says

Quigley says

Mortgage interest write-offs up to $750,000 mortgages

I feel this one needs to be scaled down a lot. That's like paying wealthy people to buy expensive houses, not right.

Absolutely! Very disappointing that such a high limit is getting included in that bill.

Patrick says

FortWayne says

Quigley says

Mortgage interest write-offs up to $750,000 mortgages

I feel this one needs to be scaled down a lot. That's like paying wealthy people to buy expensive houses, not right.

Absolutely! Very disappointing that such a high limit is getting included in that bill.

Meh. Really wealthy people buy cash and they got much bigger goodies in this tax bill.

Those who care about the mortgage deduction (courtiers to the rich at best) got shafted with the elimination of the personal exemptions and the limit to SALT.

Overall, I am happy about this tax bill.

After the neoliberals discredited themselves, now the right-wing populism will get exposed... hopefully; one should never underestimate the human stupidity. There is some small chance for the political pendulum to swing meaningfully to the left.

anon_3b28c says

Joking aside, what the smart academics realize is that someone 1000x richer eats 3 hamburgers a day and hoards the rest of the cash, whereas if that 1000X wealth were spread over the entire population, there would actually be 3000 hamburgers or more eaten leading to more demand for beef and more jobs in the restaurant, more jobs on the farm, more jobs at the beef processers, etc. That's why high inequality is bad and leads to job losses and a crappy economy.

I'm afraid the academics doing those Keynesian aggregates are being dumb or deliberately dumb:

1. Those 1000x richer eating 3 steaks a day, by paying the farmers more for those steak cuts, are allowing the farmers to sell the hamburger meat for less per pound! They are not in the market competing for the hamburger eater's lower quality cuts of meat, but in effect helping to lower the price of those lower quality cuts by giving farmers more money for the higher quality cuts, so the farmers' break-even point for the entire cattle can involve a lower price point for the hamburger meat. Restaurants would cease to exist if there is no wealth inequality; in fact, high taxation and/or raising minimum wage too high would literally cause restaurants to shutter their doors, as we have seen in Seattle in the last year or two. Wealth inequality (and low taxation/regulation) is the reason why some people can afford to go to restaurant and some others are willing to make food for them.

2. If the government steps in, and take the 1000x richer's money and give it to 1000 bean eaters who previously couldn't afford hamburgers, the immediate effect is not more hamburgers, but hamburger prices shooting through the roof! That's precisely what has happened in housing, medicine and education, where government subsidies are the heaviest and running up against government imposed limitation on supply: zoning rules and licensing. The result is not easy access or affordability but impoverishing the middle class who previous could afford those services and goods on their own. What the dumb academics call "hoarding" is in effect keeping the cattle alive and keeping the ranch in operation so that there can be hamburgers and steaks tomorrow.

3. All those bureaucrats doing the taxation and redistribution do not work for free. They need to eat too, and they usually demand higher benefits than the alleged recipients of those government benefits. It has been proven over and over again that government can not grow the economy faster than entrepreneurs can. Not just in Soviet Russia/Ukraine or Zimbabwe or East Germany, but also in this very country: when the entrepreneurs handle technology we have ever broader access to computer/internet/cellphone technology; when the government gets involved heavily in technology as in medicine we have sky-rocketing cost and utter impoverishment of the middle class if they ever need medical care. If the government had been in charge to make computer and internet accessible to everyone in 1990, you'd be bankrupt just for just watching a video online.

As for the relationship between high inequality vs. economic growth, it depends on how you measure equality in society/countries/economies like those of Cuba and North Korea: the average worker makes less than $20/mo while the leaders own private yachts/mansions/beaches/islands and free access to hordes of women. If you want to quote clueless numbers like Gini Index that ignore such lack of transparency, then low nominal inequality absolutely correlates with shitty economy, like Cuba and North Korea. If we confine our discussion to relatively transparent economies like the US over time, then rising inequality absolutely leads to economic growth and falling inequality leads to economic stagnation: simply because the stock market precedes the economy by about 6-18 months! The wealthy has more exposure to the stock market.

FP says

There is some small chance for the political pendulum to swing meaningfully to the left.

Wasn’t it the Clinton Presidency that gave us the quote: “It’s the economy, stupid!”?

If we get four years of escalating economic gains under Trump, he will be IMPOSSIBLE to replace in 2020. People will be like, “its working well so far, and the next guy could screw it up! My portfolio needs more Trump!”

@reality that was a very interesting post full of ideas I hadn’t considered! Thanks for posting!

Quigley says

four years of escalating economic gains

In a late stage business cycle? Dream on. At best a blow off top stock market.