Yeah, I live in Illinois, with combined family income in the general neighborhood of 100k, and have a modest house for the area, valued at 250k, with a loan in the low 100k range still.
My property taxes are nearly 7k per year. So you don’t have to be rich or live in a large house to have property taxes approaching 10k. In fact if I were to take my exact house and move about 5 miles north, I would have them. Anything over 300k will have that in most of Cook.
So throwing out numbers like 750k houses is laughable, and way outside the realm of where you hit the limit.
My taxes are under 3k…and it shows. No seriously, we are very low taxes and we don’t have those fancy things in our schools like… more than Spanish as a language, top notch computer labs, or study abroads. I’d like for us to up our game a little, and I don’t think other communities should be punished for it.
Hell my sister lives in a neighborhood where you can call the police on door to door sales people, they don’t but their neighbors do. If I called the police because someone was trying to sell me something, after their laughing fit, I’m sure they’d just hang up.
Not really. I certainly am not top 10%, though am firmly upper middle class (which, due to housing costs, isn’t as well off as someone with my income in Cincinatti). And the SALT changes could negatively impact me.
But all my income is from labor, and I don’t make enough to benefit from the wealthy side of things. Realistically it’s probably a push for now for me, but those changes could be a big negative in coming years.
Not really. While the top 10% are, by definition, doing pretty well, it is a mistake to think that they, as a class, will benefit from the repeal of the estate tax.
The top 10% are seeing their taxes go up to pay for a tax cut for the top 0.1% of Americans.
Everyone who benefits from lower tax rates by ending up with more money “benefits” in that narrow sense.
The question is, how much social harmony/cohesion is one willing to sacrifice for that extra money, and how much social and physical infrastructure breakdown is one willing to put up with? When one takes that into account, really the only people who benefit* (assuming they don’t give a shit about the community/city/state/country they live in) are the people who can afford bodyguards and private security.
*over a certain minimum income threshold of course
No matter how much any of us might benefit from the tax changes, it pales in comparison to the actual wealthy. And we’ll all be paying the cost for years to come.
Yep. I’d phrase it as “We got a little, the wealthy got a lot, and our children and grandchildren got fucked in both ears.”
There is something fundamentally screwed about policy being made primarily by and for people too old to worry about the negative side effects just a bit down the road.
This is what pisses me off. If I paid the same as last year or even a little more, a little more, okay whatever. To see the top 1% get the lion share, knowing the middle income group has sunsets and they designed it to punish the blue states… that’s messed up. It’s a bullshit spin to call it a tax cut for anyone but the top group, and don’t start throwing children credits and investment incomes. A lot of people don’t have children, and if you’ve got 20k in investment income… come on the average american can’t even candle a 400 dollar emergency in a month.
Actually, it is hard to qualify for the payments on a house that pays more than 10K in property on 150K salary in California. (That’s certainly not the case for states like NJ, IL etc with high property taxes).
Just last year I was rejected for $500K mortgage despite showing $120K in income.
.
A 500K mortgage implies a house price in the $625-650K due to Prop 13 property taxes are limited to ~1.1% of the sales price plus inflation so no more than $7500 in property tax even if the house was bought a number of years ago. They’d owe roughly another $7500 in CA income tax… So they would lose out on $5K in the 22% bracket that cost them $1,100 more in taxes but once again they save money since there tax bracket is reduced from the current 25% to 22%.
I won’t be so sure, in the video I linked a childless couple in RI who owned their own home making $150K found their taxes reduced by $650 year, I suspect that is probably still true.
If the goal is to make the rich pay more capping SALT deduction is actually a really a good idea.
An upper middle class couple making 150K saw a 1/3 decrease (15K to 10K) in one of their top deduction
A near rich couple $300 saw a 60% reduction $25K to $10k. The current tax code has tons of phases out in exactly the same range $150-$300K for a couple on everything from child credits, to personal exemptions, educational cost etc. However, they have minimal impact on the truly rich.
Look who gets really screwed by the SALT cap, the rich. A CA couple making a $1 million buying a $4 million house loses nearly $10K in interest deductions from decreasing the mortgage limit from $1 million. Plus more than 100K in CA Income tax, 44K in property tax. Under the old system these deductions in the 39.6% bracket this results in over $60K in less Federal taxes. In the new system, they lose over 90% of their biggest deduction. Of course they probably still save money due to the lower brackets. Sp I’m certainly not going to shed a tear for them.
I don’t know what percentage of households will be affected by SALT, but I do know that only upper middle class people pay more than $10K in state local and property taxes. It is true that blue states will be impacted more than red states. But what’s wrong with that they make more money, and I thought progressive think rich people should pay more than poor people?
As your specific example, you’d be surprised how many houses in Omaha pay more than 10K in property tax. While Omaha prices are much lower than CA, the property tax rate in Nebraska is more than twice as high as CA. So pretty much everybody in Warren Buffetts neighborhood and all the other nice neighborhoods in the town have property taxes in excess of 10K. So between property tax and NE average income tax the $150K+ plus crowd will also suffer. The median property tax in NE of $2,500 isn’t that much less than the median property tax of CA $3100.
Why would they have rising health care premiums? They are teachers, they like the vast majority of American get healthcare through their employers and are fairly insulated from the turmoil of the individual market.
The CBO estimates that of the 13 million people who would lose coverage if the mandate is repealed, seven million are dropping out of Medicaid and employer-sponsored plans. In short, the mandate is a very efficient tool for keeping premium increases in check and increasing enrollment in all types of coverage.
You know what might be cool? A mandate that Congress should be comprised of no more than a certain percentage of old people, and no more than a certain percentage of young people.
And then do the same with gender: no more than 60% of each.
