Lucky Blue States

tabs · 12-06-2004, 12:37 PM

I read in todays newspaper that part of the Bush overhall to the income tax code is going to be an ELIMINATION for the State Income Tax deduction.... guess what that means all those Blue states with high State Income taxes are going to be penalized...read that as an effective tax increase....Oh the joy of living in CA will just get more expensive...and don't you think this is a way to reign in spending on the state level....

So kinda read this little post with the Post about LA being full of illegals...and the decline of CA as a result....

ubiquity0 · 12-06-2004, 12:43 PM

Oh well, I guess Bush never promised not to raise taxes.

tabs · 12-06-2004, 12:51 PM

He ain't raisin my taxes....NV doesn't have a state income tax...and as such we don't get the deduction in the first place...where the burden falls is in the high income tax Blue States...and you might consider this to be payback ....cause now the Blue States are gona have to shoulder the complete burden of their social programs...and we will see how long they last now that they is gona have to pay thier own way....I here a tax revolt coming in those Blue states...

Neilk · 12-06-2004, 12:56 PM

I thought there was another proposal to instead allow states without income tax to deduct sales taxes from their income. I guess the Feds need to generate more revenue. That really makes California and other states with income tax an expensive place to live.

ubiquity0 · 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
He ain't raisin my taxes....NV doesn't have a state income tax...and as such we don't get the deduction in the first place...where the burden falls is in the high income tax Blue States...and you might consider this to be payback ....cause now the Blue States are gona have to shoulder the complete burden of their social programs...and we will see how long they last now that they is gona have to pay thier own way....I here a tax revolt coming in those Blue states...

Ironically CA, NY & others have a very good federal spending-to-tax ratio, in other words are already shouldering the burden of their own social programs as well as those of 'poorer' states:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html

CA spends 0.78 Federal dollars for every dollar it contributes to the Federal Govt. Compare with New Mexico ($1.99 in federal outlays for every $1.00) , Alaska ($1.89), Mississippi ($1.83), and West Virginia ($1.82).

In graphic form:

ubiquity0 · 12-06-2004, 01:09 PM

So its ok for Bush to tax the rich, who are already contributing the most, even more, but not Kerry? hmmmm?

Moneyguy1 · 12-06-2004, 01:29 PM

But Tabs, I thought you HATED NV?

Bill Verburg · Bill Verburg's Garage

Maybe he'll also eliminate the sales tax deduction which is available as an alternative deduction, to everyone as well

Superman · 12-06-2004, 02:27 PM

Washington also lacks a state income tax.

Hey, if Dubya is fixin' to extract his revenge, then enjoy it while you can because Dubya is going to get the last word, and the retaliation will be against the rest of the Republican party. All you gloaters out there are having some good fun with the nation going all conservative these days, but you may have also noticed that this nation has typically been liberal in its politics. Until the early 1980's. Well, that pendulum is going to do what it has always done. And Dubya, even though he won this last election, is doing ALL HE CAN to give the libs a free ticket to whatever they please in four years.

So, have your fun. Yuk it up. Give California a nice financial black eye while you can. You'll pay. He won't. But you will.

cool_chick · 12-06-2004, 04:34 PM

LOL Bush is so full of crap. Somehow, this does not surprise me at all.

And so many of you "Bush followers" whined about how Kerry was going to raise YOURS and MINE taxes.....even though Kerry said $200,000 and up....you guys still argued...oh no, all of our taxes will go up!

Well, you're right, all of our taxes are going up. Except it's Bush doing it.

Ahhhh the irony.

rrpjr · 12-06-2004, 06:00 PM

That sounds good but it is not altogether accurate.

The Bush tax plan proposes sweeping changes and simplifications designed to broaden the tax base and eliminate inequities such as double taxations on savings and investment. The net effect would be a reduction in taxes over a wider tax base. Moreover it has as its centerpiece cutting back the convoluted 45,000 page tax code by taking away entire categories of tax – namely “double” taxations, by taxing income only once at its source. This would be a boon to ordinary American investors.

Yes, the plan also proposes elimination of the deduction for state and local taxes, as well as the business tax deduction for employer-sponsored health insurance. But whether the former would have any negative net effect on the average taxpayer given the package of many other cuts and simplifications the taxpayer would enjoy, is highly arguable.

The chances of taxes not being raised on all income levels under a current-model democrat are zero. I don’t care what John Kerry “promised.” Bill Clinton “promised” a middle-class tax cut. They are instititionally incapable of not raising taxes. It is simply the nature of the pressures of their institutions. Further, probably more telling, it is hard to imagine the point at which a current-model democrat would assert that a level of taxation -- 40%, 50%? -- was high enough to be immoral. They don't think in those terms.

cool_chick · 06:20 PM

It's just annoying cuz that was what Bush sold these foolish republicans on.

Personally, I'd like to see the deficit drop....something needs to be done.

And how do you know what a "current-model" democrat is, let alone what they think?

LOL too funny!

rrpjr · 12-06-2004, 07:47 PM

Always happy to amuse. A current-model "liberal" democrat (my error for omitting the all important modifier) is an orthodox institutional thinker incapable of offending his big government clients and therefore incpabale of a fresh idea. You can't honestly believe these people are either hard to identify or that their thinking is hard to predict? It is child's play. They are entirely averse to good, new (i.e., reformist) ideas because they haven't figured out how to think boldly without running smack into an interest group and tucking their tails in retreat. Tort reform? Lawyers. Education reform? NEA? Tax reform? Government itself! What was Bill Clinton's sole daring and successful initiative? Nafta? No, that was started by George Bush. It was welfare reform. And it was a conservative idea. Liberals were dragged kicking and screaming to it. Clinton, canny politician, knew it was popular. John Kerry didn't have the imagination or guts to pull off anything like that. He was a dull, pious, orthodox windbag who not only couldn't climb out of the box let alone think out of it. And people knew it. It's why he lost, and why Howard Dean would have lost even worse. No imagination, no ideas. The first liberal democrat who can think imaginatively and has the brass to offend one of his precious interest groups stands a very good chance of winning. I might even vote for him.

PS, BTW, I have no idea what "LOL" means. Care to enlighten me?

Peace.

tabs · 12-06-2004, 08:16 PM

Lets take Illonois for example....has a fairly high State Income tax rate vs say a Utah.....While the tazpayer in Utah might see a sloght increase in his taxes it is the poor schmuck in Illonois that is going to have to keep on paying his higher state rate and not be able to lessen his Federal Tax because of it , thus that taxpayer will see their Federal tax climb even higher..a bigger %. This will cause alot of pain in the pocketbook for those in Illonois...and might even cause them to think twice about voting for more social programs...in a sense this is Party busting....

And boyz and gurls...I sincerly hope they only start taxing income at it's source...and end this unfairness...maybe when it's passed I might not even have to contribute last years $40 Federal Income tax to the government....

Superman · 12-07-2004, 07:28 AM

rrpjr, "LOL" is an acronym for "Laughing Out Loud."

I cannot help but assume that I am one of the current-model liberal democrats you seem to understand so accurately. I had no idea my brain was so limited as you say. You must have a lot of experience with local legislation, and also with addressing the problems of agencies that administer the laws. I'll stop there. For now. I'm curious about what kind of additional wisdom you might continue to post, and I probably will have a much more detailed response.

For now I do have questions. I know about the double-taxation of corporate dividends. I'm going to assume you know about that. And I also know that investment capital has probably been taxed (as income when it was earned or received) prior to it being invested, unless you're talking about tax deferred stuff like IRA accounts, which you are not of course. I also understand that, sooner or later, the interest earned on that investment will be taxed, as earnings. But in this model, and assuming we're not talking about tax-deferred investments, I see the capital taxed once, and then the interest is taxed once. Where is this "double taxation" that some of you are describing. When I took economics (how quickly do economic truths change, anyway?) and finance, the example of corporate dividends was held out as one of the few, if not the only, concrete instance of double-taxation. So, explain to me what sounds like many egregious instances of double-taxation.

One of my political mentors, someone who seems to accurately predict stuff and who seems to understand politics much more than I, predicts something. He reports being absolutely certain that Dubya will finish office as the least popular president in our nation's history. We'll see.

In the meantime, I'm frankly not particularly worried about Dubya. First of all, I think the more damage he does now, the harder the pendulum is going to swing. He'll be a perfect act for someone else to follow. Virtually everything that the next president does differently from Dubya, will be successful.

Second, we are in a recession. Yesterday the finance ministers in Europe met, and you guys know what they talked about. Unless you have no idea of what's happening in the economic and financial world, but I think you do. We're in trillion-dollar debt range, and that's very very very very similar to a family that buys all they want right now, taking on debt equal to many years' earnings. Tax break? You better hope he fails at this attempt. Does anyone out there actually believe that "trickle down" economics (also dubbed "voodoo economics by Dubya's father) works to create more tax revenue than it eliminates? I thought not. So, with a tax break, you're borrowing against your childrens' future under the flawed and disproven theory that prosperity is actually created by tax breaks for business, knowing that the gamble will not pay off. Nice of you to leave those children and grandchildren with this problem.

But the main reason I'm not scared is Dubya himself. His administrative skill level is so abysmally low that there is not even an ice cream con's chance in hell that he can accomplish even a fraction of what he has promised. His 2004 promises are going to work like his 2000 promises. In order to effectively change laws, a president has to "work" those bills. It's not enough to have a majority. In my country, the majority rules, but is not allowed to ride roughshod over the minority. So, in order to destroy Social Security, in order to "simplify" the tax code, Dubya would have to achieve consensus and "work" both sides of the aisle. Yea, right. And for example, simplifying the tax code would throw thousands of lawyers and accountants out of work. Besides the unemployment that would create, he'll have to battle the interests of those two industries in order to get the job done. Quiz: What is the most common professional career from which politicians have come?

Your guy has bitten off way more than he can chew. It's going to be amusing, these next four years. that much seems certain. Or at least it would be amusing if it weren't for the death and destruction, both home and overseas.

gaijinda · 12-07-2004, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rrpjr
.......... incapable of offending his big government clients and therefore incpabale of a fresh idea........

Peace.

rrpjr - this is great stuff. the post of the week!

Superman · 12-07-2004, 07:43 AM

Looks like Gaijinda and rrpjr have roughly the same amount of personal experience with politics and public policy making. Good that you can amuse yourselves so easily. I know there's not much chance of you guys actually, like, attending a hearing or something, but as a warning......the amusement thing would get more difficult if you actually understood where those other people are coming from.

cowtown · 12-07-2004, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rrpjr
Always happy to amuse. A current-model "liberal" democrat (my error for omitting the all important modifier) is an orthodox institutional thinker incapable of offending his big government clients and therefore incpabale of a fresh idea. You can't honestly believe these people are either hard to identify or that their thinking is hard to predict? It is child's play. They are entirely averse to good, new (i.e., reformist) ideas because they haven't figured out how to think boldly without running smack into an interest group and tucking their tails in retreat. Tort reform? Lawyers. Education reform? NEA? Tax reform? Government itself! What was Bill Clinton's sole daring and successful initiative? Nafta? No, that was started by George Bush. It was welfare reform. And it was a conservative idea. Liberals were dragged kicking and screaming to it. Clinton, canny politician, knew it was popular. John Kerry didn't have the imagination or guts to pull off anything like that. He was a dull, pious, orthodox windbag who not only couldn't climb out of the box let alone think out of it. And people knew it. It's why he lost, and why Howard Dean would have lost even worse. No imagination, no ideas. The first liberal democrat who can think imaginatively and has the brass to offend one of his precious interest groups stands a very good chance of winning. I might even vote for him.

Peace.

Wow. Very well reasoned and well written. I think your analysis of Kerry was spot-on. While chanting the mantra, "This Country Needs Leadership," he offered none. While criticizing W's "Big Oil Buddies," he offered a trial lawyer as VP. No ideas, no grand schemes. Now we've got W, and those who do not like his big ideas are not owning up to their failure to offer something better.

Superman · 12-07-2004, 08:12 AM

I'd have to agree that the democratic party missed the mark. And I'd agree that a leader should be open to all ideas.

And maybe it's my current model liberal democrat mind that's responsible, but it seems to me that our situation is indeed similar to a family who has bought all the stuff they wanted, and now we're looking for a way to not pay the money. In other words, perhaps there is no easy way out. If we could cut taxes, and thereby create jobs, and increase revenues and solve all the problems then fine. But I'm not so sure we don't have a much simpler situation. We're deeply in debt and going further into debt all the time. It's just possible, kids, that we're hocking our future. Actually no. It's our childrens' futures that we're hocking.

turbo6bar · 12-07-2004, 01:20 PM

good stuff, rrpjr. Don't be a stranger.
jurgen