Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 104
Thanks Tree30Thanks

Thread: Cuomo To Sue U.S. Gov Over State Tax Break Change

  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,718
    Thanks
    2767

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    They pay more tax on money they use to pay tax. And they pay more than they get back from the Fed. This is just pressure on states not to provide services to their own residents. The national government should have no interest in pressuring states to tax or not tax. It’s been that way since 1913.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Mr. Rasselas,

    Incorrect. They choose to pay more tax on the money they use to pay tax. If they choose to pay more tax, the federal government should not subsidize them.

    With regard to your second, lame, and disproven liberal bromide, you are incorrect. The tax code is set up such that it is equally applied to every citizen of every state. A citizen in Alabama pays exactly the same federal tax as a citizen in California earning the same amount of money and with the same taxable circumstances. He receives no more and no less from the federal government than the California citizen.

    Federal taxes, entitlements aside, go to pay for the federal infrastructure. Perhaps the size of infrastructure in some states are larger compared to the GDP of the state than others, but the individual citizens of those states do not receive a greater largesse from the government than others.

    Or perhaps you are proposing that all federal land be sold such that the government won't have to finance the maintenance of national forests, national monuments, national parks, and the like?

  2. #82
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,718
    Thanks
    2767

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    How clever of you to have figured that out considering the scant clues given you.
    Ms. Labrea,

    Yes, we all have noticed you doting on me, rather than responding to any of my posts...

    I love it when you guys make this all about me, but seriously, this is a debate forum.

  3. #83
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    62,691
    Thanks
    34317

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    Mr. Rasselas,

    Incorrect. They choose to pay more tax on the money they use to pay tax. If they choose to pay more tax, the federal government should not subsidize them.
    It doesn't. It holds them harmless. Taxing them on their taxes is coercive, not the other way around.

    With regard to your second, lame, and disproven liberal bromide, you are incorrect. The tax code is set up such that it is equally applied to every citizen of every state. A citizen in Alabama pays exactly the same federal tax as a citizen in California earning the same amount of money and with the same taxable circumstances. He receives no more and no less from the federal government than the California citizen.
    And yet this change means that citizens will be taxed differently based on the taxes they pay in their own state.
    Federal taxes, entitlements aside, go to pay for the federal infrastructure. Perhaps the size of infrastructure in some states are larger compared to the GDP of the state than others, but the individual citizens of those states do not receive a greater largesse from the government than others.
    Sure they do. It can be traced even to the portion of state government receipts that can be linked to federal payments. It's money in vs. money out. Higher tax states already lose more money than they gain.
    Or perhaps you are proposing that all federal land be sold such that the government won't have to finance the maintenance of national forests, national monuments, national parks, and the like?
    Not at all. This has nothing to do with with what the federal government chooses to finance. It has everything to do with who pays for it.

  4. #84
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    62,691
    Thanks
    34317

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    Ms. Labrea,

    Yes, we all have noticed you doting on me, rather than responding to any of my posts...

    I love it when you guys make this all about me, but seriously, this is a debate forum.
    Yes, just the ostentatious and passively aggressive way you post shows you want it to be all about you. You sure you aren't Donald Trump?

  5. #85
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,718
    Thanks
    2767

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    It doesn't. It holds them harmless. Taxing them on their taxes is coercive, not the other way around.

    And yet this change means that citizens will be taxed differently based on the taxes they pay in their own state.
    Sure they do. It can be traced even to the portion of state government receipts that can be linked to federal payments. It's money in vs. money out. Higher tax states already lose more money than they gain.
    Not at all. This has nothing to do with with what the federal government chooses to finance. It has everything to do with who pays for it.
    Mr. Rasselas,

    You don't pay taxes on taxes. You pay federal income tax, state income tax, and local taxes.

    And no, the change means that citizens will be tax on the federal level, exactly the same, whereas before, some taxpayers were paying less than others.

    And no, it's no money in, money out. Every citizen pays exactly the same given the same income and same circumstances. Again, your are citing a disproven liberal bromide.

    And again, are you saying that someone from California shouldn't have to pay for a national forest in Alaska? Then by all rights, shouldn't only the people of Alaska decide to do with their forest lands?

  6. #86
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,718
    Thanks
    2767

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Yes, just the ostentatious and passively aggressive way you post shows you want it to be all about you. You sure you aren't Donald Trump?
    Rasselas,

    Dude, you make this all about me, then accuse me of wanting it to be all about me?

    LOL, me thinks the lady doth protest too much...

  7. #87
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    30,334
    Thanks
    11019

    From
    on the river
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    Mr. Rasselas,

    Incorrect. They choose to pay more tax on the money they use to pay tax. If they choose to pay more tax, the federal government should not subsidize them.

    With regard to your second, lame, and disproven liberal bromide, you are incorrect. The tax code is set up such that it is equally applied to every citizen of every state. A citizen in Alabama pays exactly the same federal tax as a citizen in California earning the same amount of money and with the same taxable circumstances. He receives no more and no less from the federal government than the California citizen.

    Federal taxes, entitlements aside, go to pay for the federal infrastructure. Perhaps the size of infrastructure in some states are larger compared to the GDP of the state than others, but the individual citizens of those states do not receive a greater largesse from the government than others.

    Or perhaps you are proposing that all federal land be sold such that the government won't have to finance the maintenance of national forests, national monuments, national parks, and the like?
    They're either bereft of the intellect to understand the issue, or bold faced liars (or both)

    Let's see if we can boil the argument down to the most basic elements and round numbers for the sake of simplicity...

    Florida resident Bob earns $200K in taxable income and remits 100% of the final taxable amount to the federal government because Florida does not levy taxes on Bob's income.

    California resident Sarah earns the identical amount of taxable income, but because California has a high income tax (13%?) and the federal government has allowed her to deduct all or part, less than 100% of the final taxable amount is remitted to the federal government (to fund things like infrastructure that lefties are always howling about).

    Bob down in Florida pays his 'fair share' to the federal government, while Sarah not only doesn't pay her 'fair share' to the federal government, Sarah's duplicitous politicians benefit greatly from having access to a goodly percentage Sarah's earnings off the top, all while salaciously pandering to the idea that rich people like Sarah should pay more taxes to the federal government.

    The best part about this law is Sarah is now going to start holding her duplicitous, tax and spend politicians' feet to the fire regarding their wildly irresponsible spending and exorbitant state income taxes, and Sarah's duplicitous, tax and spend politicians aren't going to like that.
    Last edited by webrockk; 4th January 2018 at 04:29 PM.
    Thanks from Kallie Knoetze and THOR

  8. #88
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    23,370
    Thanks
    4483

    Quote Originally Posted by webrockk View Post
    They're either bereft of the intellect to understand the issue, or bold faced liars (or both)

    Let's see if we can boil the argument down to the most basic elements and round numbers for the sake of simplicity...

    Florida resident Bob earns $200K in taxable income and remits 100% of the final taxable amount to the federal government because Florida does not levy taxes on Bob's income.

    California resident Sarah earns the identical amount of taxable income, but because California has a high income tax (13%?) and the federal government has allowed her to deduct all or part, less than 100% of the final taxable amount is remitted to the federal government (to fund things like infrastructure that lefties are always howling about).

    Bob down in Florida pays his 'fair share' to the federal government, while Sarah not only doesn't pay her 'fair share' to the federal government, Sarah's duplicitous politicians benefit greatly from having access to a goodly percentage Sarah's earnings off the top, all while salaciously pandering to the idea that rich people like Sarah should pay more taxes to the federal government.

    The best part about this law is Sarah is now going to start holding her duplicitous, tax and spend politicians' feet to the fire regarding their wildly irresponsible spending and exorbitant state income taxes, and Sarah's duplicitous, tax and spend politicians aren't going to like that.
    California's over inflated real estate prices and real estate taxes also are deductible. California taxing authority is able to use the fed tax code to soften the misery index of California.
    Thanks from webrockk

  9. #89
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    30,334
    Thanks
    11019

    From
    on the river
    Quote Originally Posted by THOR View Post
    California's over inflated real estate prices and real estate taxes also are deductible. California taxing authority is able to use the fed tax code to soften the misery index of California.
    Yep...

    they're passing off a bunch of the costs associated with their lusted after big, centrally planned and administered Ameritopia to states that don't tax the fuck out of their residents.

    This law is going to force big blue politicos to answer for their spending and ridiculous income and excise tax rates, or a bunch more of their well heeled residents will simply pull up stakes and let the looter classes fight over the remaining scraps.
    Thanks from THOR

  10. #90
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    8,258
    Thanks
    1383

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    It doesn't. It holds them harmless. Taxing them on their taxes is coercive, not the other way around.

    And yet this change means that citizens will be taxed differently based on the taxes they pay in their own state.
    Sure they do. It can be traced even to the portion of state government receipts that can be linked to federal payments. It's money in vs. money out. Higher tax states already lose more money than they gain.
    Not at all. This has nothing to do with with what the federal government chooses to finance. It has everything to do with who pays for it.
    Residents of high tax states aren't taxed on their taxes by the federal government, they are taxed on their income, that's why it is called federal income tax.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Cuomo vs Trump in 2020?
    By bajisima in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 8th July 2017, 08:56 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 26th September 2016, 02:03 AM
  3. Mario Cuomo passes on
    By publius3 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 3rd January 2015, 03:40 PM
  4. Cuomo scandal
    By Macduff in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 5th November 2014, 06:58 PM
  5. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 29th January 2014, 09:25 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed