Tag Archives: taxes

Federal Deductibility of State Taxes

Posted on by
1

The current Republican Federal tax reform plan on offer, at least as described by the NLMSM, includes elimination of the deductibility of State taxes on our Federal tax returns.  Naturally, Progressive-Democrats object.  Here’s New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D), as a canonical example:

This is probably one of the most destructive policies to the state of New York I’ve heard proposed in 30 years[.]

What Cuomo and his ilk carefully ignore is that with significantly lower tax rates and a doubling of the standard deduction the value of a state tax deduction—even for high-tax States—is markedly lowered.  What they also carefully ignore is that it’s primarily their hated rich who use the deduction at all—most of the rest of us don’t incur enough expenses to be able to itemize our deductions, even (especially) medical expenses, which must exceed 10% of our AGI, anyway (and which threshold those same Progressive-Democrats want to preserve).

That doesn’t seem very destructive.

Guys like Congressman Peter King (R, NY), on the other hand, simply misunderstand the situation.  King insists, for example,

The deduction is essential for these people to get by.

His beef and that of his fellows in high-tax States, though, is with those State governments, not with the tax reform plan.  What’s essential is that those States’ usurious tax rates be lowered, so “these people” can get by with more of their own money left in their own pockets.  King and his fellows should be working to lower their States’ taxes, not preserve them.

The National Association of Realtors Objects

Posted on by
Reply

The NAR is objecting to the current tax reform plan’s essential doubling of the standard deduction to $12,000 for single filers and to $24,000 for married couples.

The Realtors are upset because they say this middle-class tax cut would make fewer taxpayers use the mortgage-interest deduction. The National Association of Realtors trashed the framework in a statement, saying it “would all but nullify the incentive to purchase a home for most, amounting to a de facto tax increase” and ensure “that only the top 5% of Americans have the opportunity to benefit from the mortgage interest deduction.”

This is beyond disingenuous; it’s dishonest.

Doubling the standard deduction to $24,000 leaves an extra $12,000 in that family’s take-home income. That means that that family can accumulate a 20% down payment on a $240,000 home (in well-off Plano, TX, real estate market, that works out to a roughly 2,300-2,600 sq ft, 4-bedroom home) in just four years, instead of forever. That’s a strong incentive to buy a home—and these folks, shorn of the mortgage interest deduction as the NAR bleats, are not in those 5%.  They wouldn’t need the “benefit from the mortgage interest deduction.”

Oh, wait—that family might choose to replace their beater with a new, or a newer used, car that would be cheaper to run instead of buying a house. The family could pay cash for that car, rather than borrow for it, in just two years.

NAR knows all of this.

Estate Tax and Tax Reform

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Republicans seem unable to understand this subject, also.

Others [Republicans] say their desire to eliminate the [estate] tax must be balanced against other priorities including tax cuts for businesses and middle-class families.

This is disingenuous. Eliminating the estate tax explicitly favors middle-class families and businesses: it’s the small businesses and farms that are owned by middle class families that are the most harmed by this death tax.

Aside from that is this piece of irrelevancy:

Estate tax repeal would reduce federal revenue by about $239 billion over the next decade, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Interesting, but unimportant here. Government has yet to show a need for that money.

Some Early Thoughts on the Tax Reform Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

…triggered by Laura Saunders’ piece in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal.

Beginning with the headline and thesis of her piece: Winners and Losers Under the Trump Tax Plan. Because Government should be about picking winners and losers instead of just protecting a level free market for all.  Sure.

Now a couple of specifics.

People with large medical or disaster deductions. Each of these write-offs on Schedule A has significant hurdles and is only available to taxpayers with large unreimbursed expenses

This one isn’t particularly relevant to tax reform. It just means that four Republican Senators who prefer preserving Obamacare intact over even a first step toward repealing/replacing it need themselves to be replaced with Republican Senators who are serious about getting rid of Obamacare and its destructiveness.

Losing the State tax deduction? That only impacts a couple of States with enormous spending habits; those citizens need to correct their State government errors.  The citizens of the other States don’t need to be dragooned into indemnifying the foolishness of those couple of States.

The mortgage deduction loses value under tax reform? Yeah, and? Punish those who don’t itemize by taxing them more (vis., not raising the standard deduction) so others can have a deduction? Beyond the cynicism of this special interest nonsense, our tax code shouldn’t be in the business of social engineering in the first place.

This proposal is a good first step in tax reform.

Now we just need to disabuse politicians that every bill is the last word on a subject rather than an interim as we move toward our goal: a flat tax in the neighborhood of 10% on all income, regardless of source, and the elimination of all deductions, credits, and other froo-froo.

Raise Taxes, Don’t Lower Them

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what the European Commission says is the correct thing to do.

The European Commission said the EU should proceed with an overhaul of taxes on digital firms even if the rest of the rich world did not follow suit, a draft report said.

And to the point:

The document is part of an EU push to tap more revenues from online multinationals such as Amazon and Facebook, who are accused of paying too little tax in Europe by routing most of their profits to low-rate countries such as Ireland or Luxembourg.

The right answer couldn’t possibly be that the high-tax members of the EU should lower theirs in competition with Ireland or Luxembourg.  Mm, mm.  Gotta destroy the competition—at the expense of the citizenry, yet.

And collect more money from those pesky businesses, too.  After all, it’s not like the money belongs to those businesses.  No, Sir: the money is the EU’s, and those bureaucrats will determine what is a sufficiency for the businesses (and the citizenry) to use for themselves.