Property taxes

[80zephyr]

I noticed in another thread that Newman stated that when he lived in New York, his property taxes on his home were $11,000 a year.

Yikes!!

Around here, that would show you live in a very nice place. My taxes on my bi-level ranch I built in 1980 are about $2,400 a year.

What do you pay?

Mark

[Newman]

We lived in a pleasant, undistinguished middle class neighborhood; the house was built in 1964. We still own a 1 BR condo in Ronkonkkma that costs over $3200/y. Those numbers are [i]with[i] the “Star” discount for oldsters

We now live in a 3 BR 2 bath ranch built in 2005; taxes are under $3000.

Once (1992?) I asked my father what his taxes were on the home he owned in the N.C. mountains. It was a beautiful place on a mountain ridge; you could see about a dozen states from the front windows, and no doubt some ungulates, too.

He didn’t know. Turns out they were $600 or so. I believe today they’re around

[Billy Jingo]

Enough to get the Republican SALT fuck.

[80zephyr]

Enough to get the Republican SALT fuck.

???

Mark

[phillygirl]

Enough to get the Republican SALT fuck.

I thought that people that have more to protect should be paying more in taxes? I believe that's what you've always said. So the SALT "expletive" would go far in making sure that the affluent aren't able to pay less in income taxes simply because they choose to build/buy more expensive homes than the poor, yes?

[Billy Jingo]

I thought that people that have more to protect should be paying more in taxes? I believe that's what you've always said. So the SALT "expletive" would go far in making sure that the affluent aren't able to pay less in income taxes simply because they choose to build/buy more expensive homes than the poor, yes?

You are confusing local with federal taxes. The SALT fuck was a federal Republican tax increase placed on me so Apple stockholders could increase their shareholder value.

[Gingersnap]

Bok's SALT Fuck has been good for me.

Our property taxes on two properties are very reasonable. Maybe Bok needs to downsize or move.

[phillygirl]

You are confusing local with federal taxes. The SALT fuck was a federal Republican tax increase placed on me so Apple stockholders could increase their shareholder value.

A tax increase? I thought it was one of those tax deductions that rich people took to avoid paying federal taxes. In other words, if I live in an area with high state and local taxes, I get to deduct them and pay less in federal taxes, then someone who makes the same amount I do but doesn't choose to live in an expensive place. Is that what we're talking about, or something else?

[Billy Jingo]

A tax increase? I thought it was one of those tax deductions that rich people took to avoid paying federal taxes.

I think it is about 30% prior to last year. 30%, even you imagine somehow it is only the top 30%, would start with an family income of about $65,000. Not poor by any means but not sure you would call that rich. Maybe by standards in places outside the Anglosphere, I guess.

In other words, if I live in an area with high state and local taxes, I get to deduct them and pay less in federal taxes, then someone who makes the same amount I do but doesn't choose to live in an expensive place. Is that what we're talking about, or something else?

I believe we may be talking about the same thing. It is sort of like people who give to the Catholic Church may pay less in federal taxes than people who don't. Or people who work from home or people who moved or people who paid for college or …. well, it's a deduction. Not sure why you guys are being obtuse about this.

People had their taxes increased at the federal level. Some, your rich (by most standards everywhere), were able to offset that tax increase by reductions in the marginal tax rates. I am not that rich.

[Newman]

You are confusing local with federal taxes. The SALT fuck was a federal Republican tax increase placed on me so Apple stockholders could increase their shareholder value.

For the record, the Republicans did not put a tax increase on you. Look to the innocent lambs in the Democratic Party such as Cuomo for that achievement.

What Trump did was lessen the subsidy low-tax citizens were providing the Democrats.

[Newman]

#2

We lived in a pleasant, undistinguished middle class neighborhood; the house was built in 1964. We still own a 1 BR condo in Ronkonkoma that costs over $3200/y. Those numbers are with the “Star” discount for oldsters.

We now live in a 3 BR 2 bath ranch built in 2005 in FL; taxes are under $3000.

Once (1992?) I asked my father what his taxes were on the home he owned in the N.C. mountains. It was a beautiful place on a mountain ridge; you could see about a dozen states from the front windows, and no doubt some ungulates, too.

He didn’t know. Turns out they were $600 or so. I believe today they’re around triple that.

Fixed and finished, but I'm unable to use the quote function just now.

[Newman]

I think it is about 30% prior to last year. 30%, even you imagine somehow it is only the top 30%, would start with an family income of about $65,000. Not poor by any means but not sure you would call that rich. Maybe by standards in places outside the Anglosphere, I guess.


In other words, if I live in an area with high state and local taxes, I get to deduct them and pay less in federal taxes, then someone who makes the same amount I do but doesn't choose to live in an expensive place. Is that what we're talking about, or something else?

I believe we may be talking about the same thing. It is sort of like people who give to the Catholic Church may pay less in federal taxes than people who don't. Or people who work from home or people who moved or people who paid for college or …. well, it's a deduction. Not sure why you guys are being obtuse about this.

People had their taxes increased at the federal level. Some, your rich (by most standards everywhere), were able to offset that tax increase by reductions in the marginal tax rates. I am not that rich.

We are talking about the same thing.

Were I still in NY with that house and condo, my property tax might be about $15,000. And let's say I'm earning $80,000 and the marginal fed rate is 30%. Under SALT Fuck rules, I'll be paying $1,500 to the federal government that I did NOT have to before. It works like this:

In the old Happy Tax days, I'd deduct the all state and local taxes from my taxable income for federal tax purposes. On my 1040 my taxable income number would drop from $80,000 to $65,000.

Under the new SALT Fuck rules, I can only deduct $10,000; my taxable income for the feds drops down to $70,000.

The difference is $5,000, which at a 30% rate costs me $1,500, which I send to the Feds.

You're calling that a tax increase, I'm not. It's in line with the old saw, One man's deduction is another man's loophole. Getting a $1,500 break in my federal tax lessens the pain of NY's higher tax (the $5,000, which, a reminder, is all tax money NYS has already taken).

But it's also a $1,500 subsidy of high state taxes, in that it has to be paid by someone else, either other taxpayers, or, the perfect saps for this, future taxpayers.

A footnote: to figure the incentive to escape NY in this example, the total tax must be compared, and new (relocated to Florida new) property taxes must be included.

So, old Happy Tax days in NY: $15,000 state property tax plus $0 zero federal income tax=$15,000 total tax.

SALT Fuck days in Florida: $6,000 property tax (house in FL and condo in NY), plus $3000 fed tax (on the $9,000 difference NY - FL)=$9,000 total tax.

$6,000 per year savings on this item may not be enough in itself to get me to move, but it's not nothing, especially to fixed income folks.

[phillygirl]

Can't quote Bok, but this is in response to last issue.

There has constantly been a cry of "tax sheltering" by "rich" people. One of those "shelters" is that "rich people" tend to buy more expensive houses in nicer neighborhoods with higher tax consequences. They get to deduct those taxes and pay less than their "fair share". I see this, along with the capping of the mortgage interest deduction, as one of the ways that the "rich" are now unable to use the acquisition of assets as a deduction on their income tax return.

I don't own any Apple stock, so I don't see how taking away my tax deduction for the other taxes I pay, as a way to increase my shares in stock.

For me, being single, no kids, and no mortgages, the only deductions I have for tax purposes are my taxes, my retirement and my gifts to charity. My retirement contribution is in some ways driven by the taxes I save. That is probably an equal motivation to my desire to save. Were there no deduction for it, I probably would not put it in a vehicle that I can not touch until 59 1/2. Given the tax deductibility of it, I maximum that, so that tax code definitely works in terms of an incentive on that one. As for charity and local taxes, the tax deductibility aspect is of no consequence. I live where I live and I give what I give without thought to it.

[Billy Jingo]

We are talking about the same thing.

It doesn't appear that way. For pretty much my living memory, any removal of a tax deduction or tax credit that was not offset by a reduction elsewhere has been characterized as a tax increase; and with good reason. You may like the tax increases since it owns the libs or whatever your new political philosophy is (certainly not lower taxes … throw that political ideal on the pile with the rest of them) but that doesn't change its nature.

[Billy Jingo]

There has constantly been a cry of "tax sheltering" by "rich" people. One of those "shelters" is that "rich people" tend to buy more expensive houses in nicer neighborhoods with higher tax consequences. They get to deduct those taxes and pay less than their "fair share". I see this, along with the capping of the mortgage interest deduction, as one of the ways that the "rich" are now unable to use the acquisition of assets as a deduction on their income tax return.

It is exceedingly rare, outside of Republicans in the last year or so, to hear people begrudge mortgage interest and SALT deductions since most middle class families used those very same deductions. I am surprised you think they are only utilized by the rich. Perhaps that's the disconnect.

I don't own any Apple stock, so I don't see how taking away my tax deduction for the other taxes I pay, as a way to increase my shares in stock.

Not shares. Shareholder value. And not yours. Theirs.