Oklahoma is going backwards

[steross]

No flaw at all ….if someone understands tax policy and federal spending. Your statement that states “still pay more into the federal systems and that money is used to cover the low-tax weaklings” exposes your lack of understanding and falling for Chafetz’s silly argument. Federal taxes are not applied by geographic location… federal spending to low-income homes is rarely by geographic area. But sure, go ahead and misunderstand.

You ignored what I said, including your complete contradiction with a previous post of your own, and repeated yourself with the only change being extra condescension and insults. Not the least bit surprising.

Nobody said they do it by geographic location, just another misdirection. But, the data on where it ends up does not lie. But, sure, claim knowledge, insult others, while being clueless to the actual data. We've seen that from you many times, DARVO.

 

[JTOSU]

You ignored what I said, including your complete contradiction with a previous post of your own, and repeated yourself with the only change being extra condescension and insults. Not the least bit surprising.

Nobody said they do it by geographic location, just another misdirection. But, the data on where it ends up does not lie. But, sure, claim knowledge, insult others, while being clueless to the actual data. We've seen that from you many times, DARVO.

I didn’t contradict myself..but you know that (or at least I hope you do).

The “data on where it ends up does not lie” has zero to do with the conversation. You’ve attempted to bring that up twice which shows you don’t understand or are making a different argument. I am not insulting you…I telling you your statement does not apply and indicates you don’t understand tax and spending policy.

I will try one more time: Federal taxes are applied evenly to all citizens of specific income levels. SALT, however, reduces a federal tax burden with state specific tax payment. The purpose of SALT is to offer a overall tax burden reduction for high-income earners in states with high state taxes…which it does… but because SALT does that, other taxpayers, in low state taxes, carry a heavier share of federal spending burden to lower income citizens in ALL states (including the high-tax states).

You are confusing the percentage amount of lower income citizens in specific states…which is not relevant to this discussion point.

 

[steross]

I didn’t contradict myself..but you know that (or at least I hope you do).

More DARVO. It was a blatant contradiction. Like obvious. You said you want ALL to keep more money. A tax deduction allows them to keep more money.
You are allowed to think what you want. But you cannot make others think incorrectly just because you do.

 

[steross]

The “data on where it ends up does not lie” has zero to do with the conversation. You’ve attempted to bring that up twice which shows you don’t understand or are making a different argument. I am not insulting you…I telling you your statement does not apply and indicates you don’t understand tax and spending policy.

I will try one more time: Federal taxes are applied evenly to all citizens of specific income levels. SALT, however, reduces a federal tax burden with state specific tax payment. The purpose of SALT is to offer a overall tax burden reduction for high-income earners in states with high state taxes…which it does… but because SALT does that, other taxpayers, in low state taxes, carry a heavier share of federal spending burden to lower income citizens in ALL states (including the high-tax states).

You are confusing the percentage amount of lower income citizens in specific states…which is not relevant to this discussion point.

Quit trying. Federal taxes are applied evenly. Federal deductions are not. Quit claiming "irrelevant" to the points that are very relevant and you will see the flaw. If you just ignore what you don't want to see, then you will never learn anything. The percentage of low income citizens in a state isn't a law or requirement. They are there due to factors in the state, many of those factors are supported (or unsuppported) by taxes. Pure relevance.

@CowboyJD has been calling you cable, and you maybe haven't even noticed. I don't agree with him. While cable was an obstinate conservative also, he would occasionally concede a point when it was explained in a way that he understood. Rare, but happened.
You have never once. Which either means you are Christ-like, or simply an arrogant poster because perfection isn't really an option.

 

[JTOSU]

More DARVO. It was a blatant contradiction. Like obvious. You said you want ALL to keep more money. A tax deduction allows them to keep more money.
You are allowed to think what you want. But you cannot make others think incorrectly just because you do.

I do want ALL to keep more money. And that means I do NOT want to shift tax burden to others. You are being obtuse about this. I am not sure if you truly don’t understand or are trying to make an adjacent argument.

Think of it this way:
State A has 10 people and 9 of them are high-tax earners. Each high earner has a $100 federal tax burden. The state income tax rate of 30%
State B has 10 people and only one of them is a high-tax earners. The one high earner has a $100 federal tax burden, but state income tax rate is 0%.

For simplicity sake, let’s make SALT entirely deductible. For state A high earners they now pay $70 in federal taxes. The State B high-earner pays $100. Total federal intake is $730. So there is $730 to go to the one low income person in states A and the nine in state B.
The burden for the high-earner in state B to fund SNAP and other services for both citizens of state A/B is higher than the reduced burden of high-earners in high tax state.

 

[JTOSU]

The percentage of low income citizens in a state isn't a law or requirement. They are there due to factors in the state, many of those factors are supported (or unsuppported) by taxes. Pure relevance.

If you just ignore what you don't want to see, then you will never learn anything.

You first point shows you are not following. Again, that is an adjacent argument that has ZERO to do with federal tax equallity.

The second..I agree. Hope you will think about it. I would not argue a point about medical to you…perhaps with financial stuff let others closer to the issue explain the flaws.

 

[steross]

I do want ALL to keep more money. And that means I do NOT want to shift tax burden to others. You are being obtuse about this. I am not sure if you truly don’t understand or are trying to make an adjacent argument.

Go back to the post I quoted where you were in favor of seniors getting a break that others did not, which is exactly the same shifting tax burden.

As I said, you are the only poster I have ever met that even when it is blatantly obvious that you have made a small error or been caught in a contradiction, which every single one of us do, simply cannot admit that you can possibly make an error.

The only one.

And, for simplicity’s sake, State B should look at State A and say, "Gee, WTF are we doing wrong since they have nearly all the high earners." Instead, the state Bs are all lying, divisive and bringing us down.

 

[JTOSU]

And, for simplicity’s sake, State B should look at State A and say, "Gee, WTF are we doing wrong since they have nearly all the high earners." Instead, the state Bs are all lying, divisive and bringing us down.

Again, that has absolutely ZERO to do with the point. I tried. Wasted effort.

 

[steross]

You first point shows you are not following. Again, that is an adjacent argument that has ZERO to do with federal tax equallity.

The second..I agree. Hope you will think about it. I would not argue a point about medical to you…perhaps with financial stuff let others closer to the issue explain the flaws.

There is no such thing as federal tax equality. Look at two small businesses, a real estate agent and an engineer. Compare their tax rates.
Look at a citizen living overseas. Look at a doc who works 1099 vs W2. Renter/owner. Kids/no kids etc, etc, etc.

So, now that we know that you are speaking fantasy, the other aspects of policy do com into play. I believe there is a reason that the states that pay more also have higher taxes generally. You seem to think that those things are just pure coincidence. We will continue to disagree about that.

 

[steross]

Again, that has absolutely ZERO to do with the point. I tried. Wasted effort.

We disagree

It has everything to do with the point:

Hey doc, I can't lose weight.

Well, you should not eat fast food all the time.

Doc, that isn't relevant. We are talking about the scale! I'm talking strictly pounds. Quit changing the subject to something that has ZERO to do with my weight!

 

[JTOSU]

We disagree

It has everything to do with the point:

Hey doc, I can't lose weight.

Well, you should not eat fast food all the time.

Doc, that isn't relevant. We are talking about the scale! I'm talking strictly pounds. Quit changing the subject to something that has ZERO to do with my weight!

That analogy is …wow. I truly am not trying to insult. But, I thought you were attempting to make an adjacent argument, but you truly are not following.

I am not going to attempt anymore on this. Enjoy your weekend.

 

[steross]

That analogy is …wow. I truly am not trying to insult. But, I thought you were attempting to make an adjacent argument, but you truly are not following.

I am not going to attempt anymore on this. Enjoy your weekend.

I'm not the least bit surprised.

You are shocked by my analogy of a person that does not understand that eating fast food affects his weight.

Meanwhile, you are also claiming that health and education levels do not have any relevance to incomes and federal taxes paid.

The hilarious thing about all this as personally I have no issue with the SALT cap. There are already too many deductions that high income taxpayer can take advantage of. I just feel your rationale, like Senator Lankford's, was poorly thought out, and also goes completely against your prior statement that you wanted ALL citizens to keep more of their money the last time I felt a deduction was not worthwhile.

 

[JTOSU]

I'm not the least bit surprised.

You are shocked by my analogy of a person that does not understand that eating fast food affects his weight.

Meanwhile, you are also claiming that health and education levels do not have any relevance to incomes and federal taxes paid.

The hilarious thing about all this as personally I have no issue with the SALT cap. There are already too many deductions that high income taxpayer can take advantage of. I just feel your rationale, like Senator Lankford's, was poorly thought out, and also goes completely against your prior statement that you wanted ALL citizens to keep more of their money the last time I felt a deduction was not worthwhile.

Analogy: No, it is because your analog does not address the point. Not even remotely. My post about Chafetz was regarding individual federal taxes. Your analogy placed the patient as the entire state instead of the invidious tax payer. We do not pay individual federal taxes as an aggregate state, but based on individual HH income level. Your analogy is off-base and doesn’t make sense. Furthermore, eligibility and benefit formula for SNAP (and most other federal benefit for low-income) are federal, not state.

All citizens keep their money: You have now tried to bring this up three times. You are 100% correct I feel that way. In no way does my opinion on SALT change that. If I supported SALT then I would be contradicting myself.

Allowing someone to deduct their state and low taxes FROM their individual federal tax obligation simply shoulders the benefit funding of lower-tax households onto some high taxpayers in lower state-tax states. Not that hard to understand. Health and education do NOT and ANY relevance to that issue. Zero, none, nada. A taxpayer in Oklahoma should not have to fund low-income households, in any state, at a higher amount than someone in New York.

 

[CowboyJD]

Analogy: No, it is because your analog does not address the point. Not even remotely. My post about Chafetz was regarding individual federal taxes. Your analogy placed the patient as the entire state instead of the invidious tax payer. We do not pay individual federal taxes as an aggregate state, but based on individual HH income level. Your analogy is off-base and doesn’t make sense. Furthermore, eligibility and benefit formula for SNAP (and most other federal benefit for low-income) are federal, not state.

All citizens keep their money: You have now tried to bring this up three times. You are 100% correct I feel that way. In no way does my opinion on SALT change that. If I supported SALT then I would be contradicting myself.

Allowing someone to deduct their state and low taxes FROM their individual federal tax obligation simply shoulders the benefit funding of lower-tax households onto some high taxpayers in lower state-tax states. Not that hard to understand. Health and education do NOT and ANY relevance to that issue. Zero, none, nada. A taxpayer in Oklahoma should not have to fund low-income households, in any state, at a higher amount than someone in New York.

I am not going to attempt anymore on this. Enjoy your weekend.