He won’t be “raising taxes”, just cutting deductions that will also screw NY and Cali over in the process. Two birds, one stone, touche.
You deserve everything you get geniuses. I’d say “we” but I didn’t vote for him.
Just out of curiosity, WHY would Bush want to screw the Blue States? He can’t run for reelection.
Just peevishness? (I am not doubting your explanation, just thinking out loud.)
I don’t see how a conservative could be behind something like this…
You miss the point–it’s directed at blue staters. It isn’t like they’re REAL citizens, y’know.
[Dubya]
That’ll teach them uppity college boys not to vote fer me, hinh, hinh, hinh.
[/Dubya]
So, why exatly should local and state taxes be deductable ** World Eater **?
Actually, for people in the “middle class,” I don’t think the blue state/red state difference is gonna be that big. While it’s true that states like CA have income taxes and TX doesn’t, that doesn’t mean that TX residents pay dramatically less taxes–it just means that taxes are collected via different means. For example, while TX doesn’t have an income tax, it does have much higher property taxes then in CA. In fact, after I purchase a house, my TX property tax will be (IIRC) a bit higher then what I was paying for my CA income tax.
I think this is way more complicated then simply “red state/blue state.” Income levels, home ownership, etc. all factor in. For example, the people in TX who are gonna be hurt the most by this are lower and middle class homeowners. A family making, say, $60k a year who owns a $130,000 home are (roughly) gonna end up paying $700 more a year in federal taxes.
Because the law as it stands now say’s they are.
I have no dog in this fight myself as I don’t file the long form.
I didn’t ask why state and local taxes are deductable I asked why they ** should ** be.
Doh–$60k a year would likely put them more in the 15% bracket then the 25%, so they’ll end up paying between roughly $431 to $700 more per year. If their income was in the $70-80k range, it would be closer to the $700 figure.
Sure Bush may raise taxes … oh excuse me … eliminate deductions, but at least we won’t have them thar same sexical marriages, flag-burnings and our kids will be taught Creationalism just like the good book says. :rolleyes:
Since it is by law legal now, the question shouldn’t be Why should it be deductible. The question should be why shouldn’t they be deductible? When you have a status quo, there needs to be an enormous amount of data supporting a change in that law/condition.
I see no reason why the status quo needs to be altered.
Also, since there is no such thing as a $130,000 home in most parts of California, I highly doubt that property taxes beat California property taxes. In the Bay Area, I believe the median home price is over $540,000 currently. THat’s probably somewhere between $7000-15,000 annually.
Sam
I hope the Reps remember that we um hold elections every two years and y’know they could actually say um LOSE one next time.
If they want to start a war against the people who didn’t give them a majority vote well that works both ways. There’s lots of ways to screw over places like Texas and help New York and New Jersey.
Feh. It just illustrates what I’ve always said: the Republican is NOT the party of lower taxes for many people.
Lets remember that this is a proposal. It’s not a done deal.
Let us also remember the Patriot act was once a proposal.
Treis, what Sam said.
Let’s consider a middle-middle class couple whose combined adjusted gross income is, say, $120k a year and who own a $324k home (or, in many parts of CA, a modest condo). To make things a bit simpler, will do our calculations in the highest bracket they’re in. Let’s say they live in a suburb of LA or Dallas respectively–say, Thousand Oaks and Irving, respectively.
In Thousand Oaks, California, they’re gonna pay ~$7,327.14 in state income tax and roughly $3,240 in property tax for a total of $10,567.14 in State and Local taxes.
In Irving, Texas, they’re gonna pay $0 in state income Tax and $9,488.53 or so in property tax for a total of $9,488.53 in State and Local taxes.
Now, if they can no longer deduct those taxes on their Federal returns, the CA couple is gonna be paying an extra $2,641.79 in taxes, and the TX couple is gonna pay an extra $2,372.13. Is the CA paying more? Yup. Are they paying a lot more? Arguably not.
The points:
[ol]
[li]You can’t look at this bill purely in terms of deducting just the state income tax.[/li][li]There are gonna be a lot of people paying higher taxes in both Red and Blue states.[/li][/ol]
Instead of taking the “look at those smug Republicans favoring the Red states!” tact, y’all may want to try taking the “look at those Republican leaders increasing taxes on the middle class” tact. Not only is it more accurate, but you might find it gets more bipartisan support!
And then they’ll vote for the next Republican that runs. What is it about that group of people that makes them LOVE getting fucked over by the Republicans so much?
Scientific analysis has demonstrated that they are politically what is known as “gay bottoms.”
:eek:
Just another example of the ways the Republicans want to reward wealth rather than work. And yet the dumb clucks who work for a living and vote Republican don’t understand that they’re the ones getting shafted. And they won’t, until the day that Foghorn Limbaugh (the fat blowhard chicken) and G. Gordon Loony (what bats? what belfry?) tell them so.
Oooo… did I see a flock of pigs go by, staying airbone by flapping one right wing?
:wally
Part of it is that they have genuinely different political views then people in the Blue states (or blue counties, really…), and the subjects on which those views are the most different from the democratic party (e.g., abortion, gun control) are more important to them then their economic well being, to some extent.
Part of it is that liberals can come off like total jerks, e.g., by saying that they love getting fucked by their elected politicians, or are “dumb clucks.”
Look ma! People for whom issues other then their own well being are more important! They must be dumbass submissive homosexuals! I wonder why they don’t vote for our candidates? 
Ugg.
We got into this after november second…
I still say that anybody who votes, that is, casts their one and only vote, for a candidate just because there are people not associated with the opposing candidate who are rude…
Well, since I’m not playing politics I can say
they’re fucking morons.
If the tone of politics is more important than actual events, you’ve chosen style over substance, and that too is stupid in choosing a person to represent you in government.