Do NY State Income Taxes Hurt the Bills?

[twoandfourteen]

14 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

As my debate teacher taught me "Embellishment is first tool of someone with a weak argument."

 

This should be tattooed on the forehead of every politician in the country. 

[Mr. WEO]

13 hours ago, MattM said:

 I think you knew what he meant--SALT used to be fully deductible (with possible fade outs for high earners), but now it's capped at $10k, which is a pittance when talking about salaries in the multiple hundred of thousands or more.  Trump did indeed %*^# just about everyone in NY on that.....

 

No, SALT is gone completely.  Property tax deduction  is what is capped at 10K.

 

Trump screwed mainly the high salary earners with large property tax burdens.  That's not about everyone in NY

[Gugny]

Wouldn't something like this be taken into consideration whilst negotiating a contract?

 

When I promoted one of my hourly employees to a salaried position, she came prepared with exactly how much money she made in overtime the previous year and used that to make her case for a salary adjustment.  This is along the same lines.  If a MIA player is offered a contract in BUF, I would expect his agent to have someone do the math to see how much he'd be losing by playing 8 games in New York state - and I'd also expect BUF to clearly show how he'd get that back.

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, Gugny said:

Wouldn't something like this be taken into consideration whilst negotiating a contract?

 

When I promoted one of my hourly employees to a salaried position, she came prepared with exactly how much money she made in overtime the previous year and used that to make her case for a salary adjustment.  This is along the same lines.  If a MIA player is offered a contract in BUF, I would expect his agent to have someone do the math to see how much he'd be losing by playing 8 games in New York state - and I'd also expect BUF to clearly show how he'd get that back.

 

That's assuming the Miami and Buffalo offers were initially for the identical amount.  They never are.  It's a bidding process.

[What a Tuel]

12 hours ago, Badthingsman said:

So it is a fact that the NY taxes hurt the Bills.  Thank you.  

 

Not really a fact. Its a situation that "could" occur, but may be factored out by 1000 other variables including where other offers come from. Miami isn't offering a contract to EVERY free agent.

[Beast]

18 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

 

I think you grossly overestimate state taxes. I think California has the highest state tax and it's in the range of 10% at the highest income bracket. No state takes 20% of your money via income tax. No matter what you still have to pay federal taxes. And up until Trump !@#$ed over everybody you use to be able to write off your state and local taxes fully against your federal taxes, which for high gross income earners deeply helped alleviate that cost. 

 

Also I think that as another poster mentioned that you get taxed by which state you play your games in. I would also add in the fact that a lot of teams in higher taxed states have no issues recruiting players. 

 

What an idiotic post.

[MAJBobby]

15 hours ago, frostbitmic said:

Why would a member of the Bills pay state income tax to NYS when playing an away game vs the Jets ?

Jets front office is in NY. That is where the state taxes are paid from based on FO location not field 

[MattM]

6 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

No, SALT is gone completely.  Property tax deduction  is what is capped at 10K.

 

Trump screwed mainly the high salary earners with large property tax burdens.  That's not about everyone in NY

I thought in the compromise bill, the $10k is either property taxes or other state taxes (i.e. Income taxes) as a nod to to NJ/NY/CA Republicans.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/pf/salt-deductions-new-tax-plan/index.html

 

I live downstate and many, many people here (if not most) are screwed by the new tax plan. 

[Mrbojanglezs]

No but it hurts me.

4 minutes ago, MattM said:

I thought in the compromise bill, the $10k is either property taxes or other state taxes (i.e. Income taxes) as a nod to to NJ/NY/CA Republicans.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/pf/salt-deductions-new-tax-plan/index.html

 

I live downstate and many, many people here (if not most) are screwed by the new tax plan. 

It's not the federal governments fault that NY, NJ, CA etc gouges it's residents with extremely high taxes. 

 

The standard deduction was doubled so unless you live in a 400k house or own 2 homes most middle class residents in NY will still see a reduction. Especially if you have kids as the child credit was doubled. 

[jlgarsh]

The personal exemption of $4,050 per family member was eliminated, so saying the standard deduction was doubled is disingenuous, since the difference is much less.  It's a complicated issue.  People in Texas are freaking out because they can't deduct unlimited sales tax anymore.  Many places without state taxes still pay taxes in other ways.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, MattM said:

I thought in the compromise bill, the $10k is either property taxes or other state taxes (i.e. Income taxes) as a nod to to NJ/NY/CA Republicans.

 

1 hour ago, MattM said:

I thought in the compromise bill, the $10k is either property taxes or other state taxes (i.e. Income taxes) as a nod to to NJ/NY/CA Republicans.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/pf/salt-deductions-new-tax-plan/index.html

 

I live downstate and many, many people here (if not most) are screwed by the new tax plan. 

 

1 hour ago, MattM said:

I live downstate and many, many people here (if not most) are screwed by the new tax plan. 

 

Most people downstate rent, so they never pay property taxes.  And the article you cited makes it clear that 90% of the SALT benefits went to those with incomes over 100K.

 

"Most" people downstate do not make greater than 100K in income.  The high earners (who don't make money from investments or pass through business revenue) with property are screwed.    What is included in the 10k cap doesn't matter.  It's a low cap--an effective and significant tax increase on top earners (the drop to 37% top rate won't help most of these filers).

[billsfan89]

On 12/30/2017 at 10:54 PM, Tcali said:

so its Trumps fault that people cant have the fed govt subsidize state taxes in mostly bankrupt states?..And who knows maybe CA,NY,or Ill(venezuela) will get mad now and up their taxes to the previously mentioned 20,30 or 40% rates.Altho I doubt that will reduce their massive deficits and debt one bit.

 

Oh !@#$ off with this sophistry. Blue States send more money to the federal government than they receive back, now that gap is going to be even wider. The Blue States were already subsidizing the Red States most of whom got back more money from the feds than they pay in. Now that gap is going to be bigger and for what? To build infrastructure that is desperately needed? To lower the national deficits which would stabilize the future? Maybe it is to help out people dealing with medical bankruptcy or crippling student debt, we bailed out the banks, why not bail out the consumer?

 

No, we are taking on all this debt to give a tax cut that mostly benefits corporations and the rich who are doing by far better than they have been in nearly all of modern history. Corporate Reserves and cash on hand are at record highs, they aren't investing money they are mostly taking their record profits and giving it back to investors a large chunk of whom are foreigners. This is a massive extraction of wealth outside of he country. The fact that the corporate and top earner rates are the permanent rates and the middle-class tax cuts expire shows you were the real priorities of the party that cut this plan are. 

On 12/31/2017 at 8:36 AM, Chimp said:

I can still write mine off.  Pa resident.  You don't have to stay where you are do you?  Come to PA

 

You can't write your local taxes beyond 10k, it's a federal tax code. The only thing a state can do is allow you to write off your property tax against your state tax, but that's not going to make up the difference at all. 

On 12/30/2017 at 7:23 PM, Mr. WEO said:

 

No, SALT is a deduction.  It is subtracted from your income to arrive at taxable income.  It isn't subtracted from your Federal taxes.

 

I know it's a deduction, you don't get it subtracted from your federal taxes. I mainly said that it alleviated the costs as if you were a high earner in NY state you could at least deduct a large amount of taxes you paid to the state against your federal bill. It obviously wouldn't give you the full amount back but getting a portion back is better than the nothing they will get now. 

[Chimp]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Oh !@#$ off with this sophistry. Blue States send more money to the federal government than they receive back, now that gap is going to be even wider. The Blue States were already subsidizing the Red States most of whom got back more money from the feds than they pay in. Now that gap is going to be bigger and for what? To build infrastructure that is desperately needed? To lower the national deficits which would stabilize the future? Maybe it is to help out people dealing with medical bankruptcy or crippling student debt, we bailed out the banks, why not bail out the consumer?

 

No, we are taking on all this debt to give a tax cut that mostly benefits corporations and the rich who are doing by far better than they have been in nearly all of modern history. Corporate Reserves and cash on hand are at record highs, they aren't investing money they are mostly taking their record profits and giving it back to investors a large chunk of whom are foreigners. This is a massive extraction of wealth outside of he country. The fact that the corporate and top earner rates are the permanent rates and the middle-class tax cuts expire shows you were the real priorities of the party that cut this plan are. 

 

You can't write your local taxes beyond 10k, it's a federal tax code. The only thing a state can do is allow you to write off your property tax against your state tax, but that's not going to make up the difference at all. 

 

I know it's a deduction, you don't get it subtracted from your federal taxes. I mainly said that it alleviated the costs as if you were a high earner in NY state you could at least deduct a large amount of taxes you paid to the state against your federal bill. It obviously wouldn't give you the full amount back but getting a portion back is better than the nothing they will get now. 

Hence the pa part.  My local taxes including income are 3500.  1% income and 1580 on a 2400 Sq ft house on 9 acres.

[billsfan89]

13 hours ago, Chimp said:

Hence the pa part.  My local taxes including income are 3500.  1% income and 1580 on a 2400 Sq ft house on 9 acres.

 

I see what you were getting at but it depends on what part of PA you live in too and it will hurt how attractive PA is for business in general since it increases the costs of doing business in general.. Honestly I am not worried about the micro impact on myself. My state income taxes aren't exceeding 10k when I write them off against each other (I live in one state and work in another, so I write off the taxes from one against the other) and I rent at this moment so I don't pay property tax. Although my parents will be effected in 2019 and beyond. They prepaid a portion of their 2018 property tax bill to get under that 10k cap but their property tax is almost 10k and their state income taxes put them well over that. 

 

I more so worry about the impact the lack of a significant write off will have on the macro economics of blue states which were clearly targeted. The Republicans wanted to make the Blue states suffer and be less attractive for businesses. This pretty much does that. It makes owning valuable property in the most economically active and driving parts of the country (The North East and the West Coast) much more expensive to do. Now I don't care as much for the rich guy who owns three houses or a really expensive house. But for businesses that own expensive properties in those states their tax bill is likely going to go up or they aren't going to receive nearly as much of a cut. For a lot of people the property values are going to go down. 

 

It's bad policy decision for the Republicans to not have the cap be higher for married couples and maybe significantly raise the cap for businesses. Then again the whole tax bill is a gigantic turn sandwich to begin with in my opinion. 

[Tcali]

19 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Oh !@#$ off with this sophistry. Blue States send more money to the federal government than they receive back, now that gap is going to be even wider. The Blue States were already subsidizing the Red States most of whom got back more money from the feds than they pay in. Now that gap is going to be bigger and for what? To build infrastructure that is desperately needed? To lower the national deficits which would stabilize the future? Maybe it is to help out people dealing with medical bankruptcy or crippling student debt, we bailed out the banks, why not bail out the consumer?

 

No, we are taking on all this debt to give a tax cut that mostly benefits corporations and the rich who are doing by far better than they have been in nearly all of modern history. Corporate Reserves and cash on hand are at record highs, they aren't investing money they are mostly taking their record profits and giving it back to investors a large chunk of whom are foreigners. This is a massive extraction of wealth outside of he country. The fact that the corporate and top earner rates are the permanent rates and the middle-class tax cuts expire shows you were the real priorities of the party that cut this plan are. 

 

You can't write your local taxes beyond 10k, it's a federal tax code. The only thing a state can do is allow you to write off your property tax against your state tax, but that's not going to make up the difference at all. 

 

I know it's a deduction, you don't get it subtracted from your federal taxes. I mainly said that it alleviated the costs as if you were a high earner in NY state you could at least deduct a large amount of taxes you paid to the state against your federal bill. It obviously wouldn't give you the full amount back but getting a portion back is better than the nothing they will get now. 

 To correct a few of your  errors...The tax cuts are temporary because of the dems. The dems could make them permanent but a 60/40 vote is needed for that. You complain about 'taking on debt' by this tax cut. ...So the doubling the natl debt over the past 8 yrs has been the result of????? You think higher taxes brings in more revenue? -That is not the case.

You complain about higher earners not getting the state tax write off.Then at the next moment you complain about this tax cut benefitting the wealthy.Which is it?

Corporate reserves are high because the corps are not reinvesting due to high taxes.Invest more, increase employment ,increase tax revenue.

Blue states send more moneny to the feds than they get back? taxes are spent in many ways. They arent supposed to be a way to give to the fed govt so the fed govt can dole out an allowance to the states. .This nonsense about higher taxing to balance a budget. That really works well in Illinois,NY and CA where they cant come close to balancing a budget with their sky high tax rates.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Tcali

[What a Tuel]

4 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I see what you were getting at but it depends on what part of PA you live in too and it will hurt how attractive PA is for business in general since it increases the costs of doing business in general.. Honestly I am not worried about the micro impact on myself. My state income taxes aren't exceeding 10k when I write them off against each other (I live in one state and work in another, so I write off the taxes from one against the other) and I rent at this moment so I don't pay property tax. Although my parents will be effected in 2019 and beyond. They prepaid a portion of their 2018 property tax bill to get under that 10k cap but their property tax is almost 10k and their state income taxes put them well over that. 

 

I more so worry about the impact the lack of a significant write off will have on the macro economics of blue states which were clearly targeted. The Republicans wanted to make the Blue states suffer and be less attractive for businesses. This pretty much does that. It makes owning valuable property in the most economically active and driving parts of the country (The North East and the West Coast) much more expensive to do. Now I don't care as much for the rich guy who owns three houses or a really expensive house. But for businesses that own expensive properties in those states their tax bill is likely going to go up or they aren't going to receive nearly as much of a cut. For a lot of people the property values are going to go down. 

 

It's bad policy decision for the Republicans to not have the cap be higher for married couples and maybe significantly raise the cap for businesses. Then again the whole tax bill is a gigantic turn sandwich to begin with in my opinion. 

 

When they argue that blue states pay in more to the federal government than they get in return, does that include SALT taxes that neither get paid in nor taken out? I never see that clarified, but the Federal government doesn't give that money to the states. They simply don't collect it from tax payers.

[billsfan89]

17 hours ago, Tcali said:

 To correct a few of your  errors...The tax cuts are temporary because of the dems. The dems could make them permanent but a 60/40 vote is needed for that. You complain about 'taking on debt' by this tax cut. ...So the doubling the natl debt over the past 8 yrs has been the result of????? You think higher taxes brings in more revenue? -That is not the case.

You complain about higher earners not getting the state tax write off.Then at the next moment you complain about this tax cut benefitting the wealthy.Which is it?

Corporate reserves are high because the corps are not reinvesting due to high taxes.Invest more, increase employment ,increase tax revenue.

Blue states send more moneny to the feds than they get back? taxes are spent in many ways. They arent supposed to be a way to give to the fed govt so the fed govt can dole out an allowance to the states. .This nonsense about higher taxing to balance a budget. That really works well in Illinois,NY and CA where they cant come close to balancing a budget with their sky high tax rates.

12

 

I understand that the middle-class tax cuts being temporary are an accounting measure due to parliamentary rules for lack of a better term. But the choice that the Republicans made to make the Corporate and upper-income rates the permanent rates OVER the middle-class rates shows their priorities and how can you not be pissed off about that? Why not have the corporate and upper-income rates be the ones that expire? It shows you the priorities of the party and who they are more concerned about when they crafted this legislation. I know there are a lot of corporate Dems who also back big business and such, but the Republicans are the worse of two evils in this respect.

 

Lower taxes sent Kansas into a massive amount of debt that they didn't have before and their economy didn't grow any differently than the states that surrounded it. I am not a dogmatic person who thinks you should always be raising revenues. I don't even have an issue with big deficits as long as they are proportional to GDP in some respect. But IF we are going to go into big amounts of debt then we honestly have to ask why and for what reason are we going to go into those big deficits? Right now we could take that money that we are giving to the top 5% and corporations and spend it in ways that pay for things the country really needs like infrastructure and middle-class tax cuts. But instead, we needed more money for those who are already doing the best. It is nice that some mid-sized firms who were paying the higher marginal rate will be getting a cut but the exemptions that big industry still enjoys are still in the tax code. Why not gut a lot of the exemptions crafted for big business and then lower the marginal rate? That would be smart and more revenue neutral or less deficit inducing. But the Republicans didn't want to piss off their corporate sponsors so they just said !@#$ it we will pay for it with more debt. 

 

Corporate reserves are at all-time high, the amount of money proportional to the overall economy held by the 1% is the highest it's been since the 1920's. This isn't because they are taxed so highly. The amount of taxes collected on both groups under Obama was lower than most other times since WWII. These factors are driven by a lack of demand from the middle class which is hurting right now. Our big deficits shouldn't be because we redistributed wealth to the upper class and corporations. Our big deficits should be because we are paying for things that will help out the middle class which is the engine of demand in our economy. 

 

If you look at the top 10 states with growing economies 4 are Blue States (California, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado) while 2 are swing states (Florida and Nevada) and the other 4 are red states (Utah, Montana, Texas, and North Carolina.) It's a mix of economic approaches. Clearly, there are a lot of factors that go into an economy other than tax rates and budgets. We only talk about taxes and budgets and other government policy because that's what we are in control of the most. But it's only one factor. I cited higher earners and businesses paying more in federal taxes in Blue States than they would in Red States (But less overall in either state) would lead to more business leaving Blue States. It could also lead to declining property values in Blue States which could hurt their economies as well. This was a weaponized tax code and you can clearly tell in the way that they crafted it. 

 

The National debt was not doubled under Obama although that isn't exactly as great an exaggeration as some defenders of his would argue. He increased the debt by 70% relative to GDP. While it was a lot by dollar amount the percentage to which he increased the debt was not as bad as GWB and Reagan who had 101% and 186% increases to the debts themselves. Once again debts and deficits aren't evil inherently but you have to ask why are you going into them? With Obama we got a lot of money poured into the economy when the recession was happening which did help alleviate the recession but then he began to pare that spending down and reallocate money to areas of less imidate need. He should have kept up spending on things like infrastructure and jobs training. But in the end he mismanaged the situation a bit. A critique of this idiotic tax plan is not a defense of Obama nor is a critique of Obama a defense of this idiotic policy.

 

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296