• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Corporate Economics Question

If it's not taxed first at the corporate level, OK.

The republicans are are trying to pass a law that would tax my wages on top of my state and local taxes are paid. That's a tax on a tax on a tax. If I get triple taxed, why not rich investors in Texas also?

No it isn't. It's two different hands in your pocket. There is no fundamental reason why the feds should let you deduct state taxes paid. Just like there is no fundamental reason they should let you deduct your mortgage interest.

Double taxation of dividends is one entity taking two bites at the same apple.
 
The republicans are are trying to pass a law that would tax my wages on top of my state and local taxes are paid. That's a tax on a tax on a tax. If I get triple taxed, why not rich investors in Texas also?

I'm not seeing the third tax... :confused:

I'm taxed on my wages, taxed on my state and local taxes (can't deduct that anymore), taxed on 100% of my SSN. Rich guys are not taxed on 100% of their SSN income.

After I posted I figured what you meant was you're now paying local tax L on X, and state tax S on X - L, and federal tax F on X (instead of X - S - L), which by my count means the L portion of X is taxed three times (L, S, and F).

Not sure what the SSN is, unless you're saying that the FICA cap somehow counts as an extra level of taxation for nonrich versus rich (in which case :confused: again....)
 
There is no fundamental reason why the feds should let you deduct state taxes paid.

When Federal income tax was first implemented during the Civil War, and again following the adoption of the 16th Amendment, there were apparently Constitutional arguments (principles of Federalism) for the practice.
 
There is no fundamental reason why the feds should let you deduct state taxes paid.

When Federal income tax was first implemented during the Civil War, and again following the adoption of the 16th Amendment, there were apparently Constitutional arguments (principles of Federalism) for the practice.

That strikes me as an argument from tradition.

There is a certain logic to allowing the deduction of state income taxes (i.e., that you didn't really get that income) but this principle is at best haphazardly applied.

I see no particular logic for why the feds should necessarily subsidize any of the ways state gain revenue. I generally support fewer deductions and lower tax rates.
 
There is no fundamental reason why the feds should let you deduct state taxes paid.

When Federal income tax was first implemented during the Civil War, and again following the adoption of the 16th Amendment, there were apparently Constitutional arguments (principles of Federalism) for the practice.

That strikes me as an argument from tradition.

There is a certain logic to allowing the deduction of state income taxes (i.e., that you didn't really get that income) but this principle is at best haphazardly applied.

I see no particular logic for why the feds should necessarily subsidize any of the ways state gain revenue. I generally support fewer deductions and lower tax rates.

I'll Google it for you...

https://www.google.com/amp/www.lati...iltzik-salt-deduction-20171208-story,amp.html
 
There is a certain logic to allowing the deduction of state income taxes (i.e., that you didn't really get that income) but this principle is at best haphazardly applied.

I see no particular logic for why the feds should necessarily subsidize any of the ways state gain revenue. I generally support fewer deductions and lower tax rates.

The principle used to be applied pretty well. Unfortunately, Congress has been eroding it as a way of raising income without changing the "tax rate".
 
There is a certain logic to allowing the deduction of state income taxes (i.e., that you didn't really get that income) but this principle is at best haphazardly applied.

I see no particular logic for why the feds should necessarily subsidize any of the ways state gain revenue. I generally support fewer deductions and lower tax rates.

The principle used to be applied pretty well. Unfortunately, Congress has been eroding it as a way of raising income without changing the "tax rate".

Tax codes are used to raise revenue, manage the economy, and promote social policy.

The mortgage interest deduction is an example of promoting social policy. It is considered a general good for society, if more people own their home. This is considered so good, not only is there a deduction for mortgage interest, but the government has programs which provide loans at low interest, and insurance against defaults, so private banks can lend at lower rates.

This is the way government works. Tax codes always become more complicated over time because small adjustments are made, and people react to either take advantage of savings, or to avoid paying more. Eventually, a tax reform is needed.

Many years ago, I was a member of a gym which had a fairly shrewd group who worked out in the early morning. There was always a political discussion in the locker room. Something about being naked makes some men talkative. I was the only one who predicted Bill Clinton's first Presidential win. (It was Bush1's long forgotten Somalian war that tipped the scales)

Later, I was asked what I thought of Clinton's tax plan, which included tax increases. I said, "If it costs me have as much as Reagan's tax cut, I'll be okay."

They protested. Reagan's tax cut reduced the percentages and reduced the number of brackets. I knew that.

When Reagan took office, the tax code had been neatly tailored to reduce the taxes on middle income wage earners. Health insurance premiums were deductible(50%, If I recall). All loan interest, credit cards included, was deductible. I was able to take a nice deduction for the purchase of steel toed boots and other safety equipment, needed for my job.

All of that disappeared and was traded for a lower rate.

I told all my naked friends, "I've been doing my own taxes since I was in high school. I know when my taxes go up." They couldn't argue with that kind of evidence.
 
That strikes me as an argument from tradition.

There is a certain logic to allowing the deduction of state income taxes (i.e., that you didn't really get that income) but this principle is at best haphazardly applied.

I see no particular logic for why the feds should necessarily subsidize any of the ways state gain revenue. I generally support fewer deductions and lower tax rates.

I'll Google it for you...

https://www.google.com/amp/www.lati...iltzik-salt-deduction-20171208-story,amp.html

That may be the least compelling constitutional argument I have ever seen.

If you want to argue something offends the Constitution it seems like you ought to at least attempt to cite the part of the Constitution you think it offends.

The 16th Amendment gives the congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states.

Don't see how not allowing a state income tax payment to be deducted offends that.
 
That strikes me as an argument from tradition.

There is a certain logic to allowing the deduction of state income taxes (i.e., that you didn't really get that income) but this principle is at best haphazardly applied.

I see no particular logic for why the feds should necessarily subsidize any of the ways state gain revenue. I generally support fewer deductions and lower tax rates.

I'll Google it for you...

https://www.google.com/amp/www.lati...iltzik-salt-deduction-20171208-story,amp.html

That may be the least compelling constitutional argument I have ever seen.

If you want to argue something offends the Constitution it seems like you ought to at least attempt to cite the part of the Constitution you think it offends.

The 16th Amendment gives the congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states.

Don't see how not allowing a state income tax payment to be deducted offends that.


Yes, constitutionally speaking, you are correct. But it is just so offensive. You are making local taxes subordinate to federal taxes. What do I get out of federal taxes? I get SSN and medicare which due to financial mismanagement of the current government and past governments I have no trust in. I get a national defense that protects my family from the invading Jihadists hordes. I get NASA (cool). But here's what I get for my local taxes: schools that my kids attend, police, and fire. It's not even a close call. I have a strong say in my local government in Oregon. I'm involved. My vote and my opinion are important here. I have zero voice in the federal government. I'm represented by a government that was elected by a minority. However, I know that I'm whinning.
 
That may be the least compelling constitutional argument I have ever seen.

If you want to argue something offends the Constitution it seems like you ought to at least attempt to cite the part of the Constitution you think it offends.

The 16th Amendment gives the congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states.

Don't see how not allowing a state income tax payment to be deducted offends that.


Yes, constitutionally speaking, you are correct. But it is just so offensive. You are making local taxes subordinate to federal taxes. What do I get out of federal taxes? I get SSN and medicare which due to financial mismanagement of the current government and past governments I have no trust in. I get a national defense that protects my family from the invading Jihadists hordes. I get NASA (cool). But here's what I get for my local taxes: schools that my kids attend, police, and fire. It's not even a close call. I have a strong say in my local government in Oregon. I'm involved. My vote and my opinion are important here. I have zero voice in the federal government. I'm represented by a government that was elected by a minority. However, I know that I'm whinning.

This is semantics and irrelevancies. The federal government has the power to define income and set exemptions regardless of what you get for it.

I don't want to pay as much federal tax either. I'd like to see federal spending cut dramatically. I'd prefer to see crazy leftists in crazy leftist states tax themselves if they want a progressive utopia. If we head in that direction I'm on board.

But this just feels like you whining, not some greater principle.
 
That may be the least compelling constitutional argument I have ever seen.

If you want to argue something offends the Constitution it seems like you ought to at least attempt to cite the part of the Constitution you think it offends.

The 16th Amendment gives the congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states.

Don't see how not allowing a state income tax payment to be deducted offends that.


Yes, constitutionally speaking, you are correct. But it is just so offensive. You are making local taxes subordinate to federal taxes. What do I get out of federal taxes? I get SSN and medicare which due to financial mismanagement of the current government and past governments I have no trust in. I get a national defense that protects my family from the invading Jihadists hordes. I get NASA (cool). But here's what I get for my local taxes: schools that my kids attend, police, and fire. It's not even a close call. I have a strong say in my local government in Oregon. I'm involved. My vote and my opinion are important here. I have zero voice in the federal government. I'm represented by a government that was elected by a minority. However, I know that I'm whinning.

This is semantics and irrelevancies. The federal government has the power to define income and set exemptions regardless of what you get for it.

I don't want to pay as much federal tax either. I'd like to see federal spending cut dramatically. I'd prefer to see crazy leftists in crazy leftist states tax themselves if they want a progressive utopia. If we head in that direction I'm on board.

But this just feels like you whining, not some greater principle.

While I agree with you, isn't the principle that the federal government is trying to push off some of the taxing to the states by encouraging them to allow for higher taxes which are offset with this deduction? But I've thought that the federal government tax rate should be 5% and that the state levels should be the federal rate.
 
This is semantics and irrelevancies. The federal government has the power to define income and set exemptions regardless of what you get for it.

I don't want to pay as much federal tax either. I'd like to see federal spending cut dramatically. I'd prefer to see crazy leftists in crazy leftist states tax themselves if they want a progressive utopia. If we head in that direction I'm on board.

But this just feels like you whining, not some greater principle.

While I agree with you, isn't the principle that the federal government is trying to push off some of the taxing to the states by encouraging them to allow for higher taxes which are offset with this deduction? But I've thought that the federal government tax rate should be 5% and that the state levels should be the federal rate.

As I said, when people from the blue states start advocating extremely lower federal taxes and extremely less federal spending and more federalism this argument won't seem like pathetic, self interested whining.

Since I have not observed blue state progressives actually arguing for these principles, but rather the opposite, my attitude is more "you want higher taxes? Here's you some effin' higher taxes".
 
I told all my naked friends, "I've been doing my own taxes since I was in high school. I know when my taxes go up." They couldn't argue with that kind of evidence.

Oh, come on now. Why do you think the numbers in front of you matter? It's what the politicians say that counts!
 
As I said, when people from the blue states start advocating extremely lower federal taxes and extremely less federal spending and more federalism this argument won't seem like pathetic, self interested whining.

I've heard it asserted that California (example of a "blue state) sends far more to the Fed than it gets back. So advocating extremely lower federal taxes and extremely less federal spending would actually BE self interested, wouldn't it? The states most dependent upon Federal spending seem to all be very red.
 
As I said, when people from the blue states start advocating extremely lower federal taxes and extremely less federal spending and more federalism this argument won't seem like pathetic, self interested whining.

I've heard it asserted that California (example of a "blue state) sends far more to the Fed than it gets back. So advocating extremely lower federal taxes and extremely less federal spending would actually BE self interested, wouldn't it? The states most dependent upon Federal spending seem to all be very red.

As I mentioned, when the left starts arguing for lower federal taxes, lower federal spending and more federalism I'll be right there with them.
 
As I said, when people from the blue states start advocating extremely lower federal taxes and extremely less federal spending and more federalism this argument won't seem like pathetic, self interested whining.

I've heard it asserted that California (example of a "blue state) sends far more to the Fed than it gets back. So advocating extremely lower federal taxes and extremely less federal spending would actually BE self interested, wouldn't it? The states most dependent upon Federal spending seem to all be very red.

As I mentioned, when the left starts arguing for lower federal taxes, lower federal spending and more federalism I'll be right there with them.
That is when there are going to be numerous monkeys flying out of some rather embarrassing places.
 
The blue states will always have higher taxes and will always subsidize the red states. Unless you change the Senate.
 
The blue states will always have higher taxes and will always subsidize the red states. Unless you change the Senate.

Well then let's do that first, THEN look to lowering federal spending & taxes.

Why do you need to change the Senate? You just need the blue state senators to come out and say "we support lower federal taxes and more federalism!". And then vote for it.

The red state senators supposedly already support that.

Win-win.
 
The blue states will always have higher taxes and will always subsidize the red states. Unless you change the Senate.

Well then let's do that first, THEN look to lowering federal spending & taxes.

Why do you need to change the Senate? You just need the blue state senators to come out and say "we support lower federal taxes and more federalism!". And then vote for it.

The red state senators supposedly already support that.

Win-win.
But the important spending also comes into play here, hence a need for control.
 
Back
Top Bottom