Where are the Fiscal Conservatives? GOP Tax Bill Adds $1.7T to Debt

[Faun]

"The GOP’s tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the course of a decade, and increase the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio by 5.9 percentage points, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

GOP tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to debt: CBO

So where are those tea party conservatives that ran on a very strict ‘we will not add to the federal debt/deficit!’

Clearly, that policy does not apply to tax breaks for corporations and the already wealthy.

You’re baying at the moon. The right only cares about debt when the president is a Democrat. When the president is a Republican, no deficit too high for them.

 

[NightFox]

LOL, it's not a conspiracy theory, one of the principle architects of Obamacare came right out and said it

Bullshit.

Go ahead and quote that...RW nonsense in 3....2....1

"Here’s a bold prediction for the new year. By 2020, the American health insurance industry will be extinct. Insurance companies will be replaced by accountable care organizations — groups of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers who come together to provide the full range of medical care for patients. " -- Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, NYT, 2012



I did appreciate your demonstration that you were capable of counting all the way to three.... that's two more than last week, keep up the good work!

 

[OKTexas]

Define a middle income wage earner.

The generally accepted definition is 66.333% to 200% of the median household income adjusted for local cost of living.

And explain why people making the same income shouldn't pay the same in federal taxes. Why should life style and location be a factor at all?
.

Because the costs aren't the same so while the NOMINAL income (in terms of number of dollars) might be equal the REAL income (actual purchasing power of that income) isn't.

We're not talking about "life style" here we're talking about the cost of State and Local TAXES, which one might point out would likely result in federal transfer payments and other subsidies to the States and Localities in question if they weren't being paid locally, so it's not like people are getting screwed if they live in a locality with low State and Local taxes, their REAL income still remains on par.

What the GOP is proposing is to tax income that was paid out in taxes which leads one to ask; since when was double taxation a plank in the GOP platform? Since when was it a conservative principle to encourage more money flowing into the central government and less to State and Local governments? I thought conservatives believed in decentralization.

So you're talking between $40,000 and $110,000 in income, virtually all those folks would take the standard deduction under the new plan. And yes, lifestyle is a determining factor in federal tax liability, where you live, whether you have children or a mortgage are all lifestyle choices. All currently have an effect on federal tax liability, they shouldn't. The exact same federal taxes should be paid on equal incomes regardless how or where you chose to live.


.

 

[NightFox]

"The GOP’s tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the course of a decade, and increase the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio by 5.9 percentage points, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

GOP tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to debt: CBO

So where are those tea party conservatives that ran on a very strict ‘we will not add to the federal debt/deficit!’

Clearly, that policy does not apply to tax breaks for corporations and the already wealthy.

You’re baying at the moon. The right only cares about debt when the president is a Democrat. When the president is a Republican, no deficit too high for them.

..... and the left only cares about them when the President is a Republican.

On the bright side it just goes to show you that the partisan lemming slices have achieved equality in terms of hypocrisy and bullshit, which is "progress" I suppose.

 

[rightwinger]

"The GOP’s tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the course of a decade, and increase the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio by 5.9 percentage points, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

GOP tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to debt: CBO

So where are those tea party conservatives that ran on a very strict ‘we will not add to the federal debt/deficit!’

Clearly, that policy does not apply to tax breaks for corporations and the already wealthy.

You’re baying at the moon. The right only cares about debt when the president is a Democrat. When the president is a Republican, no deficit too high for them.

Conservatives rebelled against deficit spending to prevent an economic collapse
They rebelled against deficit spending for hurricane relief

But deficit spending to provide tax cuts to billionaires?
Spend baby, spend

 

[yiostheoy]

"The GOP’s tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the course of a decade, and increase the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio by 5.9 percentage points, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

GOP tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to debt: CBO

So where are those tea party conservatives that ran on a very strict ‘we will not add to the federal debt/deficit!’

Clearly, that policy does not apply to tax breaks for corporations and the already wealthy.

The far right fringe will show up just in time to torpedo this bill.

Glad they are good for something.

No more Reaganesque tax cuts for the rich at the cost of skyrocketing deficits and debt.

 

[AntonToo]

LOL, it's not a conspiracy theory, one of the principle architects of Obamacare came right out and said it

Bullshit.

Go ahead and quote that...RW nonsense in 3....2....1

"Here’s a bold prediction for the new year. By 2020, the American health insurance industry will be extinct. Insurance companies will be replaced by accountable care organizations — groups of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers who come together to provide the full range of medical care for patients. " -- Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, NYT, 2012



I did appreciate your demonstration that you were capable of counting all the way to three.... that's two more than last week, keep up the good work!

....seriously? That is your proof that he "CAME OUT AND SAID OBAMACARE WAS DESIGNED TO FAIL"????

Newsflash - he said NOTHING like that. He is talking about the way Republicans are crashing the system and making a prediction where this disaster will go from here. NOTHING here indicates that he somehow designed something in ACA to death spiral.

Your assertion was bullshit, learn that and stop spreading it.

 

[OKTexas]

"The GOP’s tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the course of a decade, and increase the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio by 5.9 percentage points, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

GOP tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to debt: CBO

So where are those tea party conservatives that ran on a very strict ‘we will not add to the federal debt/deficit!’

Clearly, that policy does not apply to tax breaks for corporations and the already wealthy.

Lower spending. Problem solved.

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending. The biggest part of government spending.

Our tax rates are as high as they are because of them.

Eliminate deductions, exemptions, and credits and you can lower tax rates for EVERYONE.

Problem solved.

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending.

Not all of them.........

Name one that isn't.


.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

Measuring a taxpayers ability to pay? WTF, using BS to say tax expenditures aren't really tax expenditures doesn't alter the fact that they are tax expenditures whether they count them that way or not. If any personal choice effects your tax liability, that is a tax expenditure, where do the feds get off using the tax code for social engineering?


.

 

[OKTexas]

7
You have nothing but a theory that says it will, I have a theory that says it won't.
.

Yea, except "my theory" is consistent with CONSERVATIVE macro economists and YOUR "theory" is consistent only with other rightwing tax-cut zealots.

Claims to equivalency are spurious - it's kinda like claiming that a general gravitational theory is equivalent to a theory that a hand of god makes things fall.

Still can't address the post you quoted?


.

 

[Faun]

"The GOP’s tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the course of a decade, and increase the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio by 5.9 percentage points, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

GOP tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to debt: CBO

So where are those tea party conservatives that ran on a very strict ‘we will not add to the federal debt/deficit!’

Clearly, that policy does not apply to tax breaks for corporations and the already wealthy.

You’re baying at the moon. The right only cares about debt when the president is a Democrat. When the president is a Republican, no deficit too high for them.

..... and the left only cares about them when the President is a Republican.

On the bright side it just goes to show you that the partisan lemming slices have achieved equality in terms of hypocrisy and bullshit, which is "progress" I suppose.

The left rarely complains about the debt but more about what the money is spent on, like Bush’s needless war in Iraq; and how the debt is paid... Democrats believe in tax and spend whereas Republicans believe in borrow and spend.

 

[rightwinger]

Lower spending. Problem solved.

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending. The biggest part of government spending.

Our tax rates are as high as they are because of them.

Eliminate deductions, exemptions, and credits and you can lower tax rates for EVERYONE.

Problem solved.

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending.

Not all of them.........

Name one that isn't.


.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

Measuring a taxpayers ability to pay? WTF, using BS to say tax expenditures aren't really tax expenditures doesn't alter the fact that they are tax expenditures whether they count them that way or not. If any personal choice effects your tax liability, that is a tax expenditure, where do the feds get off using the tax code for social engineering?


.

You tax where the money is

Can't get blood from a stone

 

[NightFox]

Define a middle income wage earner.

The generally accepted definition is 66.333% to 200% of the median household income adjusted for local cost of living.

And explain why people making the same income shouldn't pay the same in federal taxes. Why should life style and location be a factor at all?
.

Because the costs aren't the same so while the NOMINAL income (in terms of number of dollars) might be equal the REAL income (actual purchasing power of that income) isn't.

We're not talking about "life style" here we're talking about the cost of State and Local TAXES, which one might point out would likely result in federal transfer payments and other subsidies to the States and Localities in question if they weren't being paid locally, so it's not like people are getting screwed if they live in a locality with low State and Local taxes, their REAL income still remains on par.

What the GOP is proposing is to tax income that was paid out in taxes which leads one to ask; since when was double taxation a plank in the GOP platform? Since when was it a conservative principle to encourage more money flowing into the central government and less to State and Local governments? I thought conservatives believed in decentralization.

So you're talking between $40,000 and $110,000 in income

Er.. NO... again you're fixated on NOMINAL income, as I said it's adjusted for local cost of living, nominal income is totally meaningless as a measure of comparison between different geographical areas. The only meaningful comparison is REAL income which is purchasing power and that is directly affected by SALT burdens. So somebody making $100,000 a year in say New York city is in fact much less well off than somebody making $100,000 a year in say Reno, NV.

But you're suggesting that the poor slob in NYC should pay federal taxes on money he forked over to the State and City? Just because he lives and works in NYC? How is that any different than the Democrats that want to punish high income earners just because they're successful?

And yes, lifestyle is a determining factor in federal tax liability, where you live, whether you have children or a mortgage are all lifestyle choices.
.

WTF? You're categorizing the state and local tax burden that falls on a wage earner as a "lifestyle choice"? Wow that goes way beyond the tired old class warfare tactics of punishing real incomes for the successful and into a whole new category of punishing real incomes based on geographical location.

... and you still haven't addressed the double taxation question and the centralization of tax dollar flows question, not to mention the raising taxes on middle income wage earners question.

 

[danielpalos]

Come on buddy, if his tax-cuts "doubled revenue" why did he and hs successors chased it up with tax raises and not more tax-cuts?

Because they didn't is the simple answer. Debt EXPLODED under Reagan, yet conservatives still refer him as a model of economic genius. Which of course only makes sense if we think of the movement as a tax-cut cult.

Reagan let the commiecrats spend like drunk sailors as long as he got his military spending. Spending is the problem, not revenue.
.

Spending causes deficits therefore tax-cuts cannot? How does that make any sense?

Revenues were down with respect to economy during Reagan years, even as economy posted solid growth.
Then we had tax raises by Reagan, Bush and Clinton and collected record revenues at the top of 90's boom,which helped bring budget as close to balanced as we had in a very long time.
That was followed by more tax cuts, DISASTROUS receipts and oceans of red ink.

History around current rates is not very complicated - when you tax-cut you increase deficits.

Weird isn't it, back when they had a top marginal rate of 90%, the government wasn't taking in any more than when it was 39%. In fact sometime much less.
.

It's not weird, it's called being very far on right side of Laffer Curve. Almost no one was stupid enough to ride in the 90% tax braket and tax avoidance was rampant.

But at 39% and modern record keeping we are well on left side of the curve and reductions here do cause reduction in revenues.

So tell the class, where is the sweet spot?


.

When tax cuts result in federal budget surpluses.

 

[NightFox]

LOL, it's not a conspiracy theory, one of the principle architects of Obamacare came right out and said it

Bullshit.

Go ahead and quote that...RW nonsense in 3....2....1

"Here’s a bold prediction for the new year. By 2020, the American health insurance industry will be extinct. Insurance companies will be replaced by accountable care organizations — groups of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers who come together to provide the full range of medical care for patients. " -- Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, NYT, 2012



I did appreciate your demonstration that you were capable of counting all the way to three.... that's two more than last week, keep up the good work!

....seriously? That is your proof that he "CAME OUT AND SAID OBAMACARE WAS DESIGNED TO FAIL"????

I never said "Obamacare was designed to fail" you did... what I actually said was "Obamacare was designed to collapse the private insurance market over the long haul," and that is what Dr. Emmanuel said as well, I can see you've decided on a career as a pathological liar so you should brush up on how to do it properly.

Perhaps you're not aware that Obamacare depends on the existence of the current configuration of the American health insurance industry, if it becomes extinct then so does the monstrosity commonly known as Obamacare and thus one step closer toward single payer.

I should have known it was too much to expect for you understand nuance or be capable of objectivity (or anything resembling honesty), partisan lemmings only seem to understand shit that feeds their confirmation bias and stuff written in crayon.

 

[RDD_1210]

"The GOP’s tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the course of a decade, and increase the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio by 5.9 percentage points, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

GOP tax bill would add $1.7 trillion to debt: CBO

So where are those tea party conservatives that ran on a very strict ‘we will not add to the federal debt/deficit!’

Clearly, that policy does not apply to tax breaks for corporations and the already wealthy.

“Where are the fiscal conservatives?” Dear god, if you took half a second to think...if you are typing on this site, you SHOULD have the capacity to figure this out yourself. I doubt you are this dumb, I suspect you’re throwing out this very retarded 2nd grade level strawman question. GOP is usually for lower taxes, SMALLER GOVERNMENT, and definitely against wasteful government spending. Does that make that statement an Oxymoron like you are suggesting, if you’d answer yes, you are an uneducated idiot drone, who only listens to thing they want to hear to boost there own self esteem. The correct answer is no, and I’m not going to waste my life to take you from point A to point B for the answer to your question on this one because it isn’t necessary. If you already knew the correct answer, which you should, then that makes this you knowingly posting a strawman argument, and you don’t really know what it is exactly you believe or why, you just know that whatever the GOP or trump pushes you are supposed to hate, and fish for whatever reason you need to hate it, even if that reason is a total strawman argument.

Really, with a GOP controlled congress, senate, and whitehouse...the left should be jumping for joy at this tax plan, that does raise taxes for on the rich, some to almost 50%. So where are the left that believe that we should be raising taxes on the rich, that’s what’s happening, why are you against this? That’s actually a better OP, you should edit yours.

Ok but seriously.

 

[OKTexas]

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending. The biggest part of government spending.

Our tax rates are as high as they are because of them.

Eliminate deductions, exemptions, and credits and you can lower tax rates for EVERYONE.

Problem solved.

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending.

Not all of them.........

Name one that isn't.


.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

Measuring a taxpayers ability to pay? WTF, using BS to say tax expenditures aren't really tax expenditures doesn't alter the fact that they are tax expenditures whether they count them that way or not. If any personal choice effects your tax liability, that is a tax expenditure, where do the feds get off using the tax code for social engineering?


.

You tax where the money is

Can't get blood from a stone

The key word in creating a taxable event in the 16th Amendment is income, if you tax the same income differently there is no equal protection under the law, see the 14th Amendment. It's just that simple.


.

 

[danielpalos]

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending.

Not all of them.........

Name one that isn't.


.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

Measuring a taxpayers ability to pay? WTF, using BS to say tax expenditures aren't really tax expenditures doesn't alter the fact that they are tax expenditures whether they count them that way or not. If any personal choice effects your tax liability, that is a tax expenditure, where do the feds get off using the tax code for social engineering?


.

You tax where the money is

Can't get blood from a stone

The key word in creating a taxable event in the 16th Amendment is income, if you tax the same income differently there is no equal protection under the law, see the 14th Amendment. It's just that simple.


.

lol. like the right wing really cares. how about equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States?

 

[rightwinger]

Tax deductions, exemptions, and credits are spending.

Not all of them.........

Name one that isn't.


.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

Measuring a taxpayers ability to pay? WTF, using BS to say tax expenditures aren't really tax expenditures doesn't alter the fact that they are tax expenditures whether they count them that way or not. If any personal choice effects your tax liability, that is a tax expenditure, where do the feds get off using the tax code for social engineering?


.

You tax where the money is

Can't get blood from a stone

The key word in creating a taxable event in the 16th Amendment is income, if you tax the same income differently there is no equal protection under the law, see the 14th Amendment. It's just that simple.


.

Every person is taxed the same

Every dollar is not taxed the same

 

[OKTexas]

Define a middle income wage earner.

The generally accepted definition is 66.333% to 200% of the median household income adjusted for local cost of living.

And explain why people making the same income shouldn't pay the same in federal taxes. Why should life style and location be a factor at all?
.

Because the costs aren't the same so while the NOMINAL income (in terms of number of dollars) might be equal the REAL income (actual purchasing power of that income) isn't.

We're not talking about "life style" here we're talking about the cost of State and Local TAXES, which one might point out would likely result in federal transfer payments and other subsidies to the States and Localities in question if they weren't being paid locally, so it's not like people are getting screwed if they live in a locality with low State and Local taxes, their REAL income still remains on par.

What the GOP is proposing is to tax income that was paid out in taxes which leads one to ask; since when was double taxation a plank in the GOP platform? Since when was it a conservative principle to encourage more money flowing into the central government and less to State and Local governments? I thought conservatives believed in decentralization.

So you're talking between $40,000 and $110,000 in income

Er.. NO... again you're fixated on NOMINAL income, as I said it's adjusted for local cost of living, nominal income is totally meaningless as a measure of comparison between different geographical areas. The only meaningful comparison is REAL income which is purchasing power and that is directly affected by SALT burdens. So somebody making $100,000 a year in say New York city is in fact much less well off than somebody making $100,000 a year in say Reno, NV.

But you're suggesting that the poor slob in NYC should pay federal taxes on money he forked over to the State and City? Just because he lives and works in NYC? How is that any different than the Democrats that want to punish high income earners just because they're successful?

And yes, lifestyle is a determining factor in federal tax liability, where you live, whether you have children or a mortgage are all lifestyle choices.
.

WTF? You're categorizing the state and local tax burden that falls on a wage earner as a "lifestyle choice"? Wow that goes way beyond the tired old class warfare tactics of punishing real incomes for the successful and into a whole new category of punishing real incomes based on geographical location.

... and you still haven't addressed the double taxation question and the centralization of tax dollar flows question, not to mention the raising taxes on middle income wage earners question.

Only double taxation in the federal code is the death tax. What individual States charge their citizens should not be a federal concern. Cost of living in a particular area should not be a federal concern, federally taxing incomes equally is a constitutional mandate in the equal protection clause.


.

 

[rightwinger]

Define a middle income wage earner.

The generally accepted definition is 66.333% to 200% of the median household income adjusted for local cost of living.

And explain why people making the same income shouldn't pay the same in federal taxes. Why should life style and location be a factor at all?
.

Because the costs aren't the same so while the NOMINAL income (in terms of number of dollars) might be equal the REAL income (actual purchasing power of that income) isn't.

We're not talking about "life style" here we're talking about the cost of State and Local TAXES, which one might point out would likely result in federal transfer payments and other subsidies to the States and Localities in question if they weren't being paid locally, so it's not like people are getting screwed if they live in a locality with low State and Local taxes, their REAL income still remains on par.

What the GOP is proposing is to tax income that was paid out in taxes which leads one to ask; since when was double taxation a plank in the GOP platform? Since when was it a conservative principle to encourage more money flowing into the central government and less to State and Local governments? I thought conservatives believed in decentralization.

So you're talking between $40,000 and $110,000 in income

Er.. NO... again you're fixated on NOMINAL income, as I said it's adjusted for local cost of living, nominal income is totally meaningless as a measure of comparison between different geographical areas. The only meaningful comparison is REAL income which is purchasing power and that is directly affected by SALT burdens. So somebody making $100,000 a year in say New York city is in fact much less well off than somebody making $100,000 a year in say Reno, NV.

But you're suggesting that the poor slob in NYC should pay federal taxes on money he forked over to the State and City? Just because he lives and works in NYC? How is that any different than the Democrats that want to punish high income earners just because they're successful?

And yes, lifestyle is a determining factor in federal tax liability, where you live, whether you have children or a mortgage are all lifestyle choices.
.

WTF? You're categorizing the state and local tax burden that falls on a wage earner as a "lifestyle choice"? Wow that goes way beyond the tired old class warfare tactics of punishing real incomes for the successful and into a whole new category of punishing real incomes based on geographical location.

... and you still haven't addressed the double taxation question and the centralization of tax dollar flows question, not to mention the raising taxes on middle income wage earners question.

Only double taxation in the federal code is the death tax. What individual States charge their citizens should not be a federal concern. Cost of living in a particular area should not be a federal concern, federally taxing incomes equally is a constitutional mandate in the equal protection clause.


.

Income has no constitutional protection

People must be treated the same under the law...they are

The first $20,000 a billionaire makes is taxed the same as a person who only made $20,000 total