Nice doublespeak.
Their taxes went up. Either you didn’t know that and are too weak to admit it or you don’t care to use language correctly.
No they didn’t. They got to deduct less. I’ve been told many times it’s not the same thing. And that it’s not our money anyway.
So enjoy paying your fair share.
Emotion. Not science.
What science is that?
“I’ve been told” is a real weak excuse to say dumb things. Just own your own nonsense and get on with it. Blaming others is not what a man would do. Men take responsibility.
2 Likes
You are confusing opinion with emotion.
You are confusing opinion with emotion. Not relevant.
You were one of the ones who told me.
Sure I did. Whatever you say.
you just gave a textbook example of Haidt’s disgust emotion. Classic.
Like I said, you have to get well north of that million to come out behind given the lowered brackets and odds are if you own a house worth that much you were already losing the deduction because of the AMT.
Not in New Jersey. You are operating off average rates.
AMT doesnt affect nearly as many people as you seem to think.
I know how many are affected by the AMT, it’s a matter of public record, one third of filers with income between $200-$500k, and being in a high tax state makes you more likely to be affected by it.
One third is not too many since you seemed to imply anyone with a million dollar house would be subject to it.
Did you happen to look up the average property tax rate in New Jersey? 2.19%
Might want to reconsider your math.
But it’s not a third, it’s higher, because as I said you are more likely than that average to be hit by it if you live in a high tax state like NJ. So here is my math
from Who is Most Affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax? | AccountingWEB
Taxpayers in high-tax states are more likely to incur the AMT. In New Jersey, 81.6 percent of taxpayers in the $200,000 to $500,000 income range face the AMT.
You were saying?
Great. But as we’ve now demonstrated, the property tax rate is much higher than you accounted for, meaning the cap is going to affect lower income individuals than you think.
I think the assumption that the public will be more friendly to a position of maintaining an unjust system so long as it isn’t so blatantly and publically cruel than a position of removing that system is rather cynical.
What’s the other option?
No matter how you slice it, if the premise is, Republicans will be hurt in New Jersey because people’s taxes went up, if follows that the ones who pay less will be happy and help Republicans. Now, did the majority of New Jersey residents taxes go up, or down? I already know the answer. Or did you want to ignore the effect on people who’s taxes went down and only could the effect on those who will see an increase? For obvious reasons. Only 10.2 percent of NJ residents will see an increase by the way.
The ones who pay less probably hardly notice their taxes went down. The vast majority of Americans might see about a 1% increase in take home pay, which is even more attenuated by the large number of NJ residents who won’t be itemizing.
This tax bill is a dud.
If we reform ICE, so it is no longer unjust, that would be a reasonable compromise.
Or do you think that is not an option?
Keep in mind, I have no problem shutting down ICE. I just do not think that should be a primary issue for the mid-terms.
