Property taxes…are deducted against your taxable income, so you don’t pay taxes on that money twice. You only pay it once.
I feel like you missed the fact that property taxes are not subject to income tax, so you’re never taxed on the same money twice.
Because it’s a cop-out to say, “Oh this only affects people with $50 million dollars or more, so who cares about the details??” I don’t think that “it only applies to multi-millionaires” should be a blanket justification for any and all tax proposals. And if you can understand why someone would be opposed to a wealth tax on principle, you can understand how that same opposition would apply at different wealth levels.
At this point, for those of you still trying to converse with Andy, when you give him an example of X, he will reply by saying it is not an example of Y. If you give him an example of Y, he will say that it isn’t an example of X.
I mean, there are plenty of taxes that only effect certain levels of income or wealth. Why would this be any different?
I don’t know what you think “X” and “Y” are in this scenario, but I’m talking about the same income being taxed twice, which is what a wealth tax would be. Property taxes are exempt from income tax, so they’re only taxed once. Vehicle registration (to the extent that it’s a tax and not a fee) is exempt from income tax, so it’s only taxed once.
Because any time people express opposition to a wealth tax on principle, people say, “But it won’t affect you at all! So why are you opposed to it???” There are plenty of laws that I oppose on principle, even though they will never affect me directly.
If we’re going to enact a wealth tax, I for one would support having a much lower floor, one that affects me directly, over one that is set at “Who cares as long as I don’t have to pay any more.” But when I suggested that up above, suddenly the response was (paraphrasing), “But that would really eat into my retirement savings!”
CraigM
2922
No, just that your average person pays property taxes using income they were already taxed on.
And as far as deducting? Only within certain limits. And let’s just say GOP tax plans have explicitly and intentionally stacked thing so many more working people are taxed on even income spent on these taxes.
And even further, let’s say someone, hypothetically, has zero income. Let’s say this person is retired and is living off saving that they previously paid taxes on as income. They still owe property tax, and with no income there is no deducting this, ergo they are paying tax on ‘the same’ money twice.
Thrag
2924
Who said who cares about the details? By pointing out the details doesn’t it show I care about the details? There’s this thing called marginal utility of the dollar. 100 bucks to a guy struggling to make his mortgage due to some setback has a great difference in meaning than 100 bucks to a guy with 50 million in assets. You seem to be ignoring this concept completely when you keep reverting to examples using wealth levels orders of power lower than the details of the actual proposals.
The average person either deducts their property taxes directly, or they get a standard deduction that exceeds that amount. Either way, the amount of their property taxes (or more) is deducted from their taxable income.
And yes, there are limits to deductions: only $10,000 a year, and only for your primary residence. But again, those are limits put in place so that rich people don’t get to buy ten houses and deduct the property taxes on all of them. The average person will never bump up against those limits.
Assuming that person has their savings in cash, as opposed to investments that they’re cashing out regularly (and taking capital gains on)…then yes, in that specific scenario, then a person would have money that they paid taxes on in a previous year, and then used for property taxes in a later year. I suppose that if you have enough money in liquid assets that you don’t make an income, then you’re technically paying double taxation on the amount equal to your property tax.
Thrag
2926
Well, if you want to limit things to some definition of the average person that may be true (though that would be pretty disingenuous when discussing proposals for a tax on extreme wealth) but it is not true universally. Deductions are capped. Thanks Trump.
And a hundred bucks to a guy without food or a place to sleep has a greater difference in meaning than someone who already has a home and a mortgage and is maybe a hundred bucks short one month. I also don’t think we should take the hundred bucks from the guy with the mortgage and give it to the homeless guy, just because it would increase the marginal utility.
Thrag
2928
Well good because nobody is proposing such a thing.
I can’t seem to find a gif, but does anyone else remember the scene where Lisa wires up a donut to a battery and Homer keeps trying to grab it, and it’s 10 seconds of bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow” bzzt “ow”, anyone else remember that scene?
Just sprang to mind for some reason. Donuts on my mind while I’m on the diet, I guess.
Washington used to charge based on your car’s value. It was outlawed by a citizen’s initiative almost 20 years ago. I remember the before times when I had the joy of paying more than $400 for the right to drive my 10 year old Civic on Washington’s roads. Good times.
Thrag
2931
Nevada has a “service tax” included in the registration fee based on a percentage MSRP that varies by model year, in addition to a small flat fee.
California, if I remember correctly and it hasn’t changed, also does it by some calculation of the value of the vehicle, plus a bunch of flat fees.
rowe33
2933
This “argument” has been going on for a while now. He’s never going to change his mind. He’s just going to keep posting incorrect “facts”, like the $10k property tax deduction cap that no average person will ever bump up against, etc.
CraigM
2934
Bullshit. My combined income in Illinois was <100k, but with property taxes I absolutely bumped against that with a very average house.
It was designed that way to ‘punish’ blue states who actually have to fund their own state budgets with local tax revenue instead of being propped up by the feds like Kansas and Alabama are.
Yup. The number of average people impacted by that cap on deductions is quite large actually, it just is another attack on the actual middle class.
Ooh, I have some ideas!
How about wealth, without only targeting the only form (housing) most people have and ignoring the form (investments and stocks) mostly the wealthy.
You have some really odd ideas. Wealth tax is about 2 things. Generating Revenue, but probably more importantly, not allowing the accumulation of wealth into the hands of a few wealthy groups or families, forming dynasties. Who cares about the little you put away? You aren’t the issue. Claiming you are on some sort of misguided principle is silly, and you should know better.
It’s the Walton, the Hiltons, the Koch’s and Disney’s and future Gates and others that are a worry to keeping our democracy a democracy. Are you claiming to have wealth on that level?
If not, no one really cares. You just aren’t important. Move on with life. Your retirement will be fine, because no one cares about the couple of million you might have saved up.
I sense a great disturbance in the force.
