2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
There is NO NETTING ON SALT. You pay your SALT (which stands for state and local taxes) THEN you deduct from the FEDERAL INCOME TAX (you decreased your income by that amount for the purpose of accounting how much your federal income taxes should be). You paid 100k in SALT before and after the cap. There was no netting around SALT, there was a "discount" on FEDERAL TAXES because of paid SALT.
Which is a net reduction on the SALT taxes owed because there would be no offsetting Federal deduction without having owed the SALT tax in the first place. You can't be this stupid. Well, I guess your posting history proves you can.
Which is a net reduction on the SALT taxes owed because there would be no offsetting Federal deduction without having owed the SALT tax in the first place. You can't be this stupid. Well, I guess your posting history proves you can.
It isn't. If it was a net reduction on the SALT, states and locals would get less money, but that's not how it works. You pay the same as before to state and local given the same income or property, even with the lower cap.
You pay a different (higher) amount to the feds, that's what gets "netted" less. You are writing objectively wrong on this topic, dunno why you insist.
It was never a REDUCTION OF SALT.
Again, perhaps English isn't your first language. "owed" has nothing to do with how much the state and locals get.
owed : to be under obligation to pay or repay in return for something received : be indebted in the sum of
Ask your accountant or a friend with knowledge on the topic about what you wrote and what i answered. You are using the words wrong.
Or wait for some on your tribe here to begrundgingly admit i am right and you are wrong (but don't worry, they will minimize because "you actually meant" something different)
It isn't. If it was a net reduction on the SALT, states and locals would get less money, but that's not how it works. You pay the same as before to state and local given the same income or property, even with the lower cap.
You pay a different (higher) amount to the feds, that's what gets "netted" less. You are writing objectively wrong on this topic, dunno why you insist.
It was never a REDUCTION OF SALT.
Not sure what happened to my post.
It has nothing to do with how much state and locals get. It's the net amount of much the taxpayer owes, pays.
Ask your accountant or a friend with knowledge on the topic about what you wrote and what i answered. You are using the words wrong.
Or wait for some on your tribe here to begrundgingly admit i am right and you are wrong (but don't worry, they will minimize because "you actually meant" something different)
owed : to be under obligation to pay or repay in return for something received : be indebted in the sum of
Source:
What part of obligation to pay don't you understand?
Not sure what happened to my post.
It has nothing to do with how much state and locals get. It's the net amount of much the taxpayer owes, pays.
Yes and the amount the taxpayer pays to state and local stays the same, with or without cap. So there is no "netting" of SALT. There is no increase of SALT.
There is an increase in the federal income tax paid, vs the counterfactual without the cap, for people who paid more than 10k in SALT. *but* they got tax cuts as well in the same bill. Significant ones, to the point the vast majority of people paying more than 10k in SALT pre-bill, ended up paying less federal income taxes anyway with the bill.
owed : to be under obligation to pay or repay in return for something received : be indebted in the sum of
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona...
What part of obligation to pay don't you understand?
The obligation toward state and local stays the same with or without capped deductions.
And their net obligation attributable to SALT taxes is reduced by the Federal deduction. Like how every other deduction in the US tax code is accounted for by tax payers. When someone is house-shopping and calculates how much mortgage payment they want to pay they don't concern themselves with how much the bank gets - they are worried about what their net expense is.
Perhaps you work for the government because you seem unable to understand taxes from the taxpayer's perspective.
Or perhaps you're one of the 50% of Republicans who think Haitians in Ohio are eating cats and dogs.
And their net obligation attributable to SALT taxes is reduced by the Federal deduction. Like how every other deduction in the US tax code is accounted for by tax payers. When someone is house-shopping and calculates how much mortgage payment they want to pay they don't concern themselves with how much the bank gets - they are worried about what their net expense is.
Perhaps you work for the government because you seem unable to understand
Going repeatedly ad hominem won't make your argument.
Other tax deductions for the federal income tax are accounted the same: i pay more or less in taxes... to the federal government.
The federal deduction reduces the amount paid to ... the federal government.
Even from a taxpayer perspective paying to state or to the fed can be very different, depending on your preferences about what those entities do with your money.
The "obligation attributable to SALT" stays the same. Identical. The feds take more money from you than they did before. But they cut it anyway (in the same bill), so your only complaining can be that people elsewhere got even better cuts.
Your "net tax expenses" all included, if rich in a blue state , went down in 95%+ of cases with Trump tax cuts, even accounting for the removal of the SALT unlimited deduction.
You aren't approaching it from a "total tax paid" point of view because you deny that.
You wanted to claim that bill increased SALT, which it didn't. Which is why Sanders voted against it.
It cut federal income taxes, a lot for rich people living in red states, and a lot but a little less for rich people living in blue states, and a bit for most other people.
Other tax deductions for the federal income tax are accounted the same: i pay more or less in taxes... to the federal government.
The federal deduction reduces the amount paid to ... the federal government.
You keep repeating that if a taxing body like a state gets the same amount of taxes paid, the SALT tax burden to the taxpayer is the same even though that burden is reduced by the Federal deduction. I gave you the mortgage example to demonstrate how your logic doesn't make any sense. You are simply arguing for the sake of not admitting you're wrong.
Trump is such a monumental piece of **** that when asked a straightforward question about denouncing the bomb threats in Springfield (elementary schools among those threatened, I remind you) his response was word for word as follows:
‘I don’t know what happened with the bomb threats, I know that it’s been taken over by uh illegal migrants and that’s a terrible thing that happened. Springfield was this beautiful town and now they’re going through hell. It’s a sad thing. Not gonna happen with me I can tell you right now’
The guy is instigating bomb threats on a city based on lies his running mate has said they have no intention of stopping, can’t be bothered to denounce bomb threats and I’m supposed to believe you aren’t a total piece of **** for stanning a MAGA hat
But sure, Dems are getting out of hand here with the rhetoric
"Elect me if you want the bomb threats to stop..." has got to be a bumper sticker
So your proof that a tax-cutting Republican like Trump didn't increase SALT taxes specifically to punish blue states...is that a tax-increasing Democrat like Sanders also supported imposing a SALT cap? Are you being serious?
now you're just making stuff up - this is really sad dude, you were wrong, that's ok, be a big man and admit it or at least stop posting about it
Bernie is absolutely for raising taxes on the elites
now you're just making stuff up - this is really sad dude, you were wrong, that's ok, be a big man and admit it or at least stop posting about it
https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-ext...
Bernie is absolutely for raising taxes on the elites
Do you guys not even read the posts you're replying to? I called Sanders a "tax-increasing Democrat" in my original reply to you.
now you're just making stuff up - this is really sad dude, you were wrong, that's ok, be a big man and admit it or at least stop posting about it
https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-ext...
Bernie is absolutely for raising taxes on the elites
Bernie is a typical politician . When he started out he was preaching raise the taxes on millionaires but once he became a millionaire it was raise the taxes on billionaires
There are obviously endless examples of this but as the son of a LAUSD teacher and a former sub, the one that sticks out to me is the school lunches you mentioned.
As a sub, they told us to try the food on our first day. I don't know if this is some kind of hazing thing, but I had a cheeseburger that was genuinely one of the most disgusting things I've ever tasted. The cheese was this yellow goo, a bit like you'd get if you were suicidal e
great post, agree 100%
Trump Mistakes Wildlife Refuge for Airbase in Afghanistan: ‘We Have Bagram in Alaska’
Former President Donald Trump mixed up the name of an Alaskan wildlife refuge and an air base in Afghanistan during a town hall in Flint, Michigan on Tuesday.
Boasting to the audience about how he got oil drilling approved in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, commonly referred to ANWR, Trump said:
We were energy independent, we were soon going to be energy dominant, and we would’ve been now having so much money coming out of the energy. We just have the best. We have Bagram in Alaska. They say it might be as big, might be bigger, than all of Saudi Arabia. I got it approved. Ronald Reagan couldn’t do it, nobody could do it. I got it done. In their first week they [the Biden administration] terminated it.
Instead of ANWR, used the word Bagram – the name of the United States’ former air base in Afghanistan.
Trump continued to make confusing remarks about Bagram and ANWR, saying, “Check that one out. Bagram. Check that one that. ANW– it’s, it’s– no, think about this. Between Bagram, between– you go to ANWR…”
Source:
Yeah, I'm sure Trump executing his own Afghanistan exit plan that Biden used would have gone smoother if he was in power at the time.
it's pretty funny that Trump doesn't seem to be willing/able to really talk much about the actual things he did as president.
He did actually pass a conventional republican tax cut, but wasn't super popular and I don't think most people really notice or care anymore.
Immigration he was supposed to transform the system, but was not able to even pass anything, tried to use bureaucratic cruelty as a deterrent which wasn't super popular and ended up being reversed easily. Other presidents kicked the can on an immigration bill, but none made it as central to a campaign as Trump and he effectively did nothing lasting that wasn't already status quo since GWB.
Trade wars went as predicted. Easy to start, hard to wind down from don't really benefit nation as a whole but gives the federal government more power in picking winners and losers in the market.
Foreign policy; Middle East plan was a disaster, which some people were predicting after seeing the Abraham Accords in 2020. Bringing peace to the middle east by putting Israeli Palestinian disputes on the back burner was.....uhhhh not a smart way to go. In North Korea we had the 2 fat guys 1 handshake summit. None of the behind the scenes diplomacy looked to even be attempted. Kim would have met with any POTUS, Trump was the one guy willing to do it without any change or concession from Kim. In some ways we got the best result here; nothing changed status quo continues and Trump did not make anything worse than it was when he took over.
Healthcare and Infrastructure. Just lol Veep style running jokes not much to say, but he has flip flopped pretty hard on Obamacare though he's mostly just mirrored conventional republican talking points on this, in 2016 and now with random 1 off lies like "we'll cover everyone" which made no sense thrown in.
it's pretty funny that Trump doesn't seem to be willing/able to really talk much about the actual things he did as president.
He did actually pass a conventional republican tax cut, but wasn't super popular and I don't think most people really notice or care anymore.
Immigration he was supposed to transform the system, was not able to even pass anything, tried to use bureaucratic cruelty as a deterrent which wasn't super popular and ende
Jamie Oliver famously went on a big quest to address this and was told to eff off. This is basically an apolitical issue. You have to be some kind of lunatic to want students to be served disgusting, extremely unhealthy food. And the cost of upgrading the food would be trivial.
I mean, it really isn't though. Do you have kids? It's a real challenge to get them to eat anything unfamiliar even high quality, expensive, healthy stuff most upper middle class adults would really enjoy . Now think about cooking for 1000 kids in a low income area where these problems are the worst and most kids have very little exposure to things you would not call junk food. Given you can't force kids to eat something they don't want to, and your budget is like a dollar per meal it's not really a surprise pre-made chicken nuggets, pizza etc are the staples. Here's a
by a former Noma chef who started a company to improve school lunches and the huge challenges. Something like a Cesar salad with a side of hummus sounds totally reasonable to me now, but in 7th grade I could easily see myself just not eating over that. Even the picture in the article of an example meal looks good to me now, but I'm not sure at 11.
