bush to pay for SS and tax cuts by taxing blue states

zimv20

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
link

Bush Plan Could Imperil Tax Write-Off for New York

As the Bush administration looks to revamp the tax code, New York officials say they are particularly worried about one idea being considered: eliminating the federal deduction for state and local taxes.

If the president pursues this plan, New York State would lose about $37 billion per year in federal tax deductions, more than almost any other state, according to Internal Revenue Service data. The change would affect about 3.2 million households in New York, three-quarters of which are middle- and low-income, tax records indicate.

"This change would be one of the worst things for New York to came out of Washington in a long time," said Senator Charles E. Schumer. "But if they take this route they can expect a serious fight."

With a 7.7 percent maximum state income tax rate, the second-highest in the country behind California's 9.3 percent, New York would be especially affected because its residents use those taxes to take large federal deductions. About 38 percent of households in New York file for some sort of federal deduction of state and local taxes.

New York City residents, who also pay city income taxes, would be especially hard hit as they could expect an 11 percent increase in the amount they pay the I.R.S., or an increase of about $3.4 billion, said Ronnie Lowenstein, director of the city's Independent Budget Office.

Beyond New York, eliminating the federal deduction for state and local taxes would also affect residents in New Jersey and Connecticut. Among the state and local taxes that could no longer be claimed as a deduction would be property taxes, which are particularly high in the New York City region.
Tax experts say that the reason for such a change would be to offset the cost of certain tax cuts that the White House hopes to make in areas like savings and investment.

Max B. Sawicky, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, said that eliminating state and local deductions would also enable the administration to adjust the alternative minimum tax, which was created in 1969 to ensure that the wealthy are not able to avoid paying income taxes by taking large deductions. Since this tax is not indexed for inflation, it has increasingly engulfed larger numbers of people. The administration wants to either eliminate or adjust the tax so that fewer people have to pay it each year, a change that could benefit New Yorkers, whose average incomes are much higher than in most other states.
there's your answer, IJ Reilly.
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
BTW, Texas has no state income tax.

Also, the maximum state income tax in Oregon is 9.0%, which should put it above NY...

I don't think this will fly - for example, CO and AK also have high state income taxes(I believe) and they are GOP states...I don't think anyone will like this, either side of the partisan aisle, as States are strapped for cash as it is...
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
ahh the NYTIMES!

Well, blue states have been saying that everyone needs to pay more taxes! here is their opportunity to lead the way! :p

On the subj, my bro-n-law, a big kerry fan, was asking me questions about how to pay less taxes!!!! I howled!!!!!!!!
Answer #1, dont vote democrat. :p
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
stubeeef said:
On the subj, my bro-n-law, a big kerry fan, was asking me questions about how to pay less taxes!!!! I howled!!!!!!!!
Answer #1, dont vote democrat. :p
such a tired generality. do you truly believe the bush administration is the shining beacon of fiscal responsibility? do you have any evidence that the overall tax burden for the middle class has decreased under the bush administration?

also, please point me to the nytimes liberal bias in the article. i'd like the exact line, please.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
zimv20 said:
such a tired generality. do you truly believe the bush administration is the shining beacon of fiscal responsibility? do you have any evidence that the overall tax burden for the middle class has decreased under the bush administration?

also, please point me to the nytimes liberal bias in the article. i'd like the exact line, please.
No the W admin is not a bright shining beacon of fiscal responsibility, but I am tired of the so called balanced budget we were supposed to have too. those budgets were built on the lie of the 90s (enron worldcom and dotcom).
I am not aware of war time surpluses in the 20th century, and don't expect them in the 21st.

Liberal bias would be the alarmist title vs the buried quote.
Bush Plan Could Imperil Tax Write-Off for New York
You see there is no particular plan yet, so how could it imperil anyone?!

this is the buried quote which is also conveniently missing from your post as well...

Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said it was too early to discuss specific plans. "The president has yet to appoint the panel that will review the tax code and make recommendations on how it can be made simpler, fairer and more pro-growth," she said. "Until then, he will not rule any options in or out." The president will appoint the panel before the New Year, she added.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
Sorry stu, this cat was out of the bag long before I read about in a NY Times article. The administration began running this idea up the flagpole a couple of weeks ago. Don't believe for a second that this isn't something they'd like to do in the name of "tax reform;" the only question is whether it's politically feasible. I'm going to take a WAG and say it isn't. They'd sooner be able to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction.

Incidentally, I wonder what the administration would call this "reform" -- surely not "tax relief."
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
hey stu, here's some data on the kinds of things that are costing people more, even if they have seen nominal declines in federal tax rates. for good measure, i've thrown in some service cuts, too. this list is be no means exhaustive.

CS Monitor: Property taxes rising nationwide
Madison, Wis., is an example of how some of these changes are affecting both the town and some of its residents. Assessments climbed 9 to 10 percent for several years in a row as housing prices have risen, reflecting the city's buoyant economy. This is happening once more, so even though the city is actually reducing the mill rate (the multiple of property value used to determine residential taxes) from 8 mills to 7.8, property taxes are going up 5.5 percent.

[...]

retirees estimate it takes them two full months of their fixed income to pay their property taxes.
CNN: College costs spike again
The average tuition for undergrads attending four-year public universities jumped 10.5 percent this year. That helped to push the average price of attendance, including room, board and fees, up $824 to $11,354.

[...]

The tuition increase at public schools isn't as steep as it was last year – when average tuition rose a record 13 percent – but it is still high by historical standards.

[...]

funding for the federal Pell grants, a staple of aid for low-income students, rose 6 percent in 2003, but there also was an increase of 7 percent in the number of Pell recipients. As a result, the average grant fell 1 percent in constant dollars.

What's more, the purchasing power of the Pell grant has declined during the past 25 years. In 1980-81, a Pell grant covered 35 percent of the total annual cost of attending a public university. In 2003-04, it covered 23 percent.
Economic Policy Institute: Weak Recovery Claims New Victim: Workers' Wages
  • Inflation-adjusted hourly wages fell for middle- and low-wage men and women, making 2003 the worst year for wage growth over the 1998-2003 period.
  • Despite the acceleration of gross domestic product (GDP) growth in late 2003, the wage growth of production, non-supervisory workers (over 80% of the workforce) actually slowed in this period.

[...]

Despite the fact that it is now over two years since the economy began growing after the downturn that lasted from March to November 2001, the U.S. economy has yet to achieve significant or sustained job creation. In fact, 33 months into this business cycle there are 1.8%, or 2.4 million, fewer jobs than when the recession began. This lack of job growth has been well documented, but its negative impact on the growth of wages has received little attention.
LA Times, on job training funds
Washington once sought to help people adjust to global competition, industrial restructuring and technological change by offering job training. Twenty-five years ago, the federal government spent $27.3 billion annually (in 2003 dollars) through the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, or CETA. Even if one doesn't count CETA's "public service" jobs, which were widely criticized as boondoggles, it was still spending $17.1 billion. By contrast, the government now spends about $4.4 billion on CETA's successor, the Workforce Investment Act. "It's largely a place holder," said Anthony P. Carnevale, an authority on education and training who was appointed to major commissions by presidents Reagan and Clinton. "It gives politicians something to point to but doesn't do much good."
Detroit News, on job training
Federal job training budgets have dropped $597 million during the Bush administration, making it more difficult for those living in poverty to find work and get off government assistance. Job training programs, rooted in the war on poverty, are critical elements of welfare-to-work initiatives.

The funding cuts, which have affected the poor and the suddenly unemployed alike, happened even as the nation experienced one of the longest employment slumps on record.

The funding cuts were made as Congress and the administration pushed through more than $600 billion in tax cuts that went primarily to those making more than $288,800. The money cut from job training is less than 1 percent of the tax breaks received this year by those earning an average of more than $1 million, according to an analysis of the Bush tax cuts by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, using data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
zimv20 said:
hey stu, here's some data on the kinds of things that are costing people more, even if they have seen nominal declines in federal tax rates. for good measure, i've thrown in some service cuts, too. this list is be no means exhaustive.
[chomp, chomp, chomp]
Yeah, but gas prices are down like 15 cents!

BTW, my out-of-pocket health insurance costs tripled this coming year while the benefits were slashed. Yay!
 

Roger1

macrumors 65816
Jun 3, 2002
1,152
0
Michigan
stubeeef said:
ahh the NYTIMES!

Well, blue states have been saying that everyone needs to pay more taxes! here is their opportunity to lead the way! :p

On the subj, my bro-n-law, a big kerry fan, was asking me questions about how to pay less taxes!!!! I howled!!!!!!!!
Answer #1, dont vote democrat. :p
#2 put all your excessive spending on credit. Why increase income?? :rolleyes:
 

Taft

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2002
1,319
0
Chicago
stubeeef said:
Liberal bias would be the alarmist title vs the buried quote.
...
You see there is no particular plan yet, so how could it imperil anyone?!
So I guess 'could' and 'will' now mean the same thing? :rolleyes:

The meaning of the title is very simple and in keeping with the content of the article: Bush's tax plan for his upcoming term COULD (as in: might, maybe, we'll see in the future) cause New York to pay more in taxes through losses in eligible write-offs. Did not the president say all options were on the table? Has his administration, as well as other Republicans, not indicated this is a possibility? Would that change not be bad for New York state?

Friggin' unbelievable. No excuse to label the Times as biased is too low for you, Stu.

Taft
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
Taft said:
So I guess 'could' and 'will' now mean the same thing? :rolleyes:

The meaning of the title is very simple and in keeping with the content of the article: Bush's tax plan for his upcoming term COULD (as in: might, maybe, we'll see in the future) cause New York to pay more in taxes through losses in eligible write-offs. Did not the president say all options were on the table? Has his administration, as well as other Republicans, not indicated this is a possibility? Would that change not be bad for New York state?

Friggin' unbelievable. No excuse to label the Times as biased is too low for you, Stu.

Taft
I guess I'm the lowest, but please tell me what plan that they are refering to! I'll be waiting, cause they don't have one yet!!!! So you read things differently, so what. But in your argument it COULD also mean they will pay less taxes, only the liberal bias would have W making hilliary's constituents panicing early.

Friggin Unbelievable! No excuse to defend the Times as not biases is too quick for you, taft.
 

Taft

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2002
1,319
0
Chicago
stubeeef said:
I guess I'm the lowest, but please tell me what plan that they are refering to! I'll be waiting, cause they don't have one yet!!!! So you read things differently, so what. But in your argument it COULD also mean they will pay less taxes, only the liberal bias would have W making hilliary's constituents panicing early.

Friggin Unbelievable! No excuse to defend the Times as not biases is too quick for you, taft.
So when the Chicago Tribune reports on comments made by Governer Blagojevich indicating changes in State tax policy and how that might impact the Chicagoland area, that is conservative bias? Maybe, but don't you think it is something Americans want to know about? And when the Economist reports on likely effects of, say, privatized social security (something Bush has indicated support for, though he doesn't have a concrete "plan" for at this time), are they exposing their liberal bias? Maybe, but don't you think that Americans might want to see an analysis on the likely effect of that policy which is being considered for future implementation?

I understand that Bush doesn't have a "plan" yet, so long you define plan as a concrete set of steps or policies that have been layed out. But the fact remains that politicians routinely indicate support for or opposition to ideas and possible future policy changes, and those indications are routinely analyzed by the press. And when the policies being explored by politicians are going to have a large effect on a particular region, the press in that region--*shock* *gasp* *horror*--usually reports on those issues. I know it might seem crazy to you, but the Times might have concluded this policy being considered is newsworthy for New Yorkers. If I was a New Yorker, I'd want to hear about possible future policies which would impact me.

BTW, I REALLY enjoyed how you slipped a conspiratorial reference to the Clinton family into your post. If you look hard enough, I'm sure you'll find that the French, the UN, the ACLU and John Kerry were somhow involved in getting this article published as well.

Trust no-one! ... unless they are a conservative...

Taft
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Stu, how can you accuse democrats of wanting to raise taxes then? I haven't heard any specific plan yet, but that doesn't stop you from assuming that's what they're gonna do. Sure they've talked about repealing the Bush tax cuts, but where's the plan, man? Without a specific plan you cannot criticize them, right? Or are those rules suspended when a Democrat is in your sights?
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
First, prices have risen since the dawn of time and will continue to do so. College, property taxes etc...have risen under Dems and Repubs so spare me. Almost all tax relief since JFK ( who had it right ) has been under republican control ( congress or prez ).

If the press wants to report possible changes they shouldn't predict doom, or atleast state the other possible changes. But thats the press.
Zim, I am hopeful for service decreases/cuts, or at least the privatizing of them-government is awful at it. Taft, I refuse to address every article about every person you want to dredge up. NYTimes article has a liberal bias, period.
Mact, I have accused the dems based on historical precidence, not on any particular new quest.
My position on taxes has been stated adnausem.
The article is biased.
Good day.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
stubeeef said:
First, prices have risen since the dawn of time and will continue to do so. College, property taxes etc...have risen under Dems and Repubs so spare me.
you exhibit a serious flaw of reasoning which ignores degree and specificity. yes, prices go up, but it's folly to dismiss all mention of price increases as partisan because of that while ignoring what is increasing in price and by how much.

NYTimes article has a liberal bias, period.
because they speculate on a possible outcome? is imagination itself liberal? is concern for future situation liberal? you'll have to do better than that. way better.
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
Stu, what is your opinion of Medicare and/or the reforms passed during Bush's first term?
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
I'm a little confused by stu's opinions on this topic. I can't determine if he is for or against this possible change in federal income tax law, or if he just doesn't want to believe that the Bush administration or Republicans in Congress would consider making it. The only thing that seems apparent is that he'd rather we don't know or talk about it (which perhaps answers my other questions).
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
IJ Reilly said:
I'm a little confused by stu's opinions on this topic.
it's that the new york times has a liberal bias. therefore, democrats like to raise taxes.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
zimv20 said:
it's that the new york times has a liberal bias. therefore, democrats like to raise taxes.
zim, darn close but actually

it's that the new york times has a liberal bias, AND democrats like to raise taxes. :cool:
 

Taft

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2002
1,319
0
Chicago
stubeeef said:
Taft, I refuse to address every article about every person you want to dredge up. NYTimes article has a liberal bias, period.
I didn't dredge up any articles. I just gave some similar situations which occur in conservative leaning publications as an illustration of my point: the press analyzes hints left by politicans and the possible impacts of those hints on the populace. Everybody does it, but when its the Times, their bias is showing.

Whatever. Your mode of argument is frustrating beyond belief.

The earth is flat. Period.
Liberals hate America. Period.
I am the Lord almighty. Period.

Amazing! I've just proved three highly dubious statements in only three lines!

Ahhh, the power of "Period"...

Taft
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
Taft said:
I didn't dredge up any articles. I just gave some similar situations which occur in conservative leaning publications as an illustration of my point: the press analyzes hints left by politicans and the possible impacts of those hints on the populace. Everybody does it, but when its the Times, their bias is showing.

Whatever. Your mode of argument is frustrating beyond belief.

The earth is flat. Period.
Liberals hate America. Period.
I am the Lord almighty. Period.

Amazing! I've just proved three highly dubious statements in only three lines!

Ahhh, the power of "Period"...

Taft
Your argument that the world is flat will not float, but believe what you choose.
I don't think liberals hate america, but I believe you are allowed your opinion.
I am positive that you are not the Lord Almighty! but that may reveal part of the problem here.

Because this liberal bias theme seems strange to some, it has been discussed to death in the rest of the world. An example

Results 1 - 10 of about 650,000 for new york times liberal bias. (0.30 seconds)*
 

Thanatoast

macrumors 65816
Dec 3, 2002
1,005
134
Denver
stubeef,

How would you have titled or reworked this article in order remove its liberal bias? As far as I can see, boiled down it said "Bush considers plan that could raise taxes in NY". How is that biased? Would you prefer "Bush bravely leads nation in raising freedom-revenues to destroy evil-doers"? :confused: