Some states receive much more federal spending than they pay in federal taxes. Others are the opposite and are donor states. CA has the biggest deficit on an absolute basis and DE on a per-dollar basis. The bigger the federal deficit, the higher state taxes need to be to cover the difference, and the bigger the surplus the lower it is. Delaware gets 31 cents on the dollar for everything they pay, and Alabama gets $2.46. NC isn’t as bad as the deep south, they’re in the middle, but still a net taker at the federal level.
In general, the more people on public assistance and federal jobs in a state, the better they do, and the higher the per-capita income the worse they do.
Illegals pay sales tax on the stuff they buy and many of them pay income taxes. They’re also not eligible for government benefits. Funny but it actually would help in a tiny way.
What you’re saying makes sense, but that’s the way it’s designed. Money goes to people that need it. If you have higher-income per capita, then your population generally requires less government assistance. That’s less need for federal funding for housing, less need for welfare and food stamps, etc… So California gets less, because less people need federal gov assistance. Isn’t that a good thing?
You’re using the results of one analysis to justify your point, when it reality, they don’t have anything to do with one another.
Updated - - -
We need more illegals like we need holes in our heads… There is a reason why new houses are so cheap here.
Also, does nobody talk about the fact how this plan makes the corporate tax cuts permanent but makes the ones for individuals expire over the next 10 years to pay for it? So in addition to blowing out the deficit and hurting people like me now, it eventually hurts everyone. Except corporations, because they’re people now. Over the long run, everybody pays more, and the less you have, the more and sooner you pay.
It’s essentially a chess move. We’ll have a democrat in office next. So if the tax breaks are allowed to expire, republicans get to point fingers at the democrat president.
It makes sense that the bigger tax cuts are for the wealthier. They make the most and contribute the most. What doesn’t make sense is RAISING taxes on lower incomes.
So this really is a tax break for the wealthy being paid for by the lower class. I’d also like to know how much those numbers would change when you account for entitlements, write offs, tuition waivers as income, etc.
Additionally, they are trying to reduce the health care individual mandate penalty to $0. Not eliminate it, reduce it to 0. Which is another half assed chess move to blame democrats down the road when premiums go up again due to fewer people carrying insurance.
Considering that other than the temp. Bush tax cuts it hasn’t changed since the early 80’s, and the fact that you need both houses of congress and the Presidency to change it (60 votes in the Senate for anything permanent) it’s not that far fetched.
Yup, they were short on money to make this stay under the 1.7 trillion dollars they’re allowed to add to the deficit so they’re banking on healthy people dropping insurance and their need for subsidies. Which collapses the private health care marketplace and jacks premiums up through the roof, then they say that Obamacare doesn’t work and they try to kill those. Not sure mobilizing the doctor/hospital/health insurer lobby against this with that little piece was the smartest move on their part.
Most everyone will see a decrease in their taxes. Of course SOME people might be in situations where it will go up slightly, but the vast majority will see a cut.
I’ve started to read up on these bills and there is a lot I hate about them actually. Joe hit on some of those points.
But I’ve gotta say, I really don’t hate the idea of dropping SALT even though I might pay more (I haven’t had a chance to run the digits). What it does is it moves the discussion of taxation back to the states, where again more people at more income levels contribute.
I’m going to play devils advocate here, so this is your trigger warning for anyone who thinks I’m trying to shit on Joe below
It’s fair because it’s two different bundles of “stuff” you’re getting from two different governments. It’s not double taxation because what the state does with the money (local services, etc) and what the federal government does with the money (military, etc) are not entirely the same. Call it “different taxation”.
Democrats should love eliminating SALT because it gives the central government more revenue and that means more power, right?
Also why is it that the states have first dibs on tax dollars anyway? If I was pro central-planner, I’d want the federal government to get first crack at taxation. Let the states go second then instead allow people to deducted their federal taxes from their state taxes. (Some states already do this.)
… I have $13,000 in property taxes a year and $24,000 in mortgage interest. Now I’d be paying federal tax on those. And no, I’m not wealthy, and my house in CA is all of 1200 square feet.
Do you itemize?
This is the thing, regardless if you view dropping SALT as double taxation or not, hardly anyone making under $100k itemizes to use SALT. Above $100k, the more money you make the more likely you are to itemize and use the SALT deduction. The higher your income the more you benefit from SALT.
So in other words removing SALT is a tax on the rich.
You’re benefitting from low state taxes because NY and CA subsidize NC at a federal level, and we’re suffering.
Some states receive much more federal spending than they pay in federal taxes. Others are the opposite and are donor states…
… Delaware [donor state] gets 31 cents on the dollar for everything they pay, and Alabama [leach state] gets $2.46.
Woah, suffering? Has Joe been red pilled?
Again, if I was a pro central-planner I’d love this. The morally superior federal government is the arbitrator of the necessary funds to help those on public assistance, etc. It’s redistribution of wealth from the rich in Delaware, California, and NY to the poor in Alabama and North Carolina. As a Democrat, don’t you consider this a good thing?
This federal spending that states receive is for federal programs. If Alabama is being a leach (my term) then change the federal program. Or better yet, remove the federal program entirely and let the state create its own version to take care of it’s own people.
