T1B

Some high tax states are attempting to find ways for their residents to continue to be able to deduct all SALT taxes. CA is looking at making State Income Tax Payments offset by a charitable contribution to a fund for the same purpose. This is quite interesting and besides the potential legal challenges I wonder about unintended consequences.

It is also interesting to me that there is all this effort in these states to help the richest residents of their states. Long we have heard from these folks about the rich paying their fare share. Yet here is legislation that would see the richest tax payers in their state losing some deductions. Instead of saying it is about time they are working to create laws that would allow an end run around these deductions for the rich. So clearly the rich in other states should pay their fair share but not those in CA, CT, NY, NJ, etc.

There is also a lot of rhetoric from legislators in these states about double taxation not being fair. What? If they were really concerned they wouldn’t have a state income tax at all. Seven states don’t have income taxes, what prevents these high tax states from doing away with their income tax? That would really do something about double taxation vs legislation that might benefit 20% of their population.

I had no idea that CA has an income tax rate of 13.3% in their highest bracket on top of their high sales tax. No wonder Mikey is considering Santa Fe.

88 wrote:I think you need to look at the issue from a different angle. The elected officials from the State of California (and other high SALT states) are not reacting to the limitation of the deduction because they are concerned about the amount of taxes their constituents have to pay. They are concerned that their constituents will decide to move to a different state and thus reduce the amount of revenue collected by the State of California. If they were concerned about how much tax their constituents pay, they would lower the taxes. That isn't on the table. People with means (which is to say, the people who pay the majority of taxes in progressive tax system) often vote with their feet. They have the means to move to more favorable tax states. That is what California is worried about. They don't give a fuck about the people. They only care about keeping control over the people's money.

You don't live in California. Why do you give a fuck?

Mind your own fucking business.

Screw_Michigan wrote:
You don't live in California. Why do you give a fuck?

Well for one it could set legal precidents for the rest of the US. b) it is typical politican hypocricy. 7. Could employers set up something that reduced take home pay for employees but paid for some of their fixed costs, which would reduce the tax take for these high tax states?

It's a dumb idea (nationally) the more blue fucks moving to other (presumably some red) states the better.

Moving Sale wrote:It's a dumb idea (nationally) the more blue fucks moving to other (presumably some red) states the better.

Good point. One of my NOVA native friends despises all the libruls who have turned once red Fairfax into purple to blue.

Like a gang of looters creeping into the convenience store.

If Cali wants to lower taxes, then request, but not force their residents to pay into this "charity", I would be OK with it. But they won't. I am guessing that reclassifying a tax as a charity contribution will get a good chuckle out of the IRS auditors.

A charity is a voluntary contribution, which is why it is deductible. A tax is not.

We could really make this simple and just remove all deductions. That should satisfy the libs who want the rich to pay their fair share. Well at least the rich in other states.

Left Seater wrote:We could really make this simple and just remove all deductions. That should satisfy the libs who want the rich to pay their fair share. Well at least the rich in other states.

You need a longer sig. 88pedo's is kicking your ass.

Actually in both it you kicking your own ass.

Yeah, real interesting kid ...

Left Seater wrote:Actually in both it you kicking your own ass.

:grin: :doh:

That was written as close to your gibberish as I could get it.

I see so it's my fault.
Fucking douche.

And yet you live in California no?

See also John Gruden back loading his new contract to avoid Rebuplik of Confiscation state taxes until the Raiders move to Las Vegas.

Link?

https://sportsnaut.com/2018/01/jon-grud ... a-tax-law/

Hoping that this was made up? Too bad, fake news and lies is your department.

One league source? It's a start, but where is the evidence, if true, that it's because of taxes?

Left Seater wrote:https://sportsnaut.com/2018/01/jon-grud ... a-tax-law/

Hoping that this was made up? Too bad, fake news and lies is your department.

Name one lie I have ever told.
Name one fake news source I have ever pimped.

schmick wrote:

Left Seater wrote:See also John Gruden back loading his new contract to avoid Rebuplik of Confiscation state taxes until the Raiders move to Las Vegas.

His agent must have thought that up, if Gruden was smart enough to do so, he wouldn't have taken a job with the raiders

I'm sure the Raiders came up with the idea of back-loading. Less liability if Chucky doesn't perform but they still get the big splash of a 100 million dollar contract.

It all depends on the guaranteed number. Doubt the agent and chuckie would go for it being back loaded if a decent amount of that back load wasn't guaranteed.

Left Seater wrote:It all depends on the guaranteed number. Doubt the agent and chuckie would go for it being back loaded if a decent amount of that back load wasn't guaranteed.

Ah so it isn't (all) about taxes. Way to fuck yourself in the mouth.

You are a dumb cunt. It is about taxes, hence the reason for the guaranteed money on the back end.

Left Seater wrote:You are a dumb cunt. It is about taxes, hence the reason for the guaranteed money on the back end.

Yes, coaching contracts have NEVER been backloaded. This is the first time in the history of global sport a contract has been back loaded and it's DEFINITLEY because of the new tax law.

Left Seater wrote:You are a dumb cunt. It is about taxes, hence the reason for the guaranteed money on the back end.

Evidence! Do you have any evidence?


Nice sig loser.

Left Seater wrote:Actually in both it you kicking your own ass.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Left Seater wrote:You are a dumb cunt. It is about taxes, hence the reason for the guaranteed money on the back end.

Yes, coaching contracts have NEVER been backloaded. This is the first time in the history of global sport a contract has been back loaded and it's DEFINITLEY because of the new tax law.

If it wasn’t backloaded due to the tax issues then Chuckie should fire his agent.

Sig war. Awesome.

Left Seater wrote:
If it wasn’t backloaded due to the tax issues then Chuckie should fire his agent.

So you were just lying again when you said it was for tax reasons. Do you ever NOT lie?

Words are hard, huh board bitch? Google can help you with the words, no help for your postings though.

You said it was backloaded for tax reasons. When asked to back it up you couldn't, which had to have known when you posted. Therefore you lied. You can take your condescension and your need for validation and shove them up your ass.

Hey Board Bitch and dumbest poster on T1B, I posted a link from a respected league source that said it was backloaded for tax reasons. But keep lying Liar.

The some guy said so defense. That is called speculation. Contracts are backloaded all the time in the NFL. Until you can show this was to dodge a million or so in taxes you are just blowing smoke.

Take it up with the source and multiple additional writers who have also written similar stories.

Poor little Board Bitch.

Link?

Need validation much?

I already posted a link board bitch.

To one guy. You said there are multiple sources. Link?
Oh that's right you are full of shit.

Look at you lying away. I said there was a source and multiple stories. These other stories reference the source.

Just another reason you are Board Bitch, making up claims and then arguing over them. Poor little man.

Left Seater wrote:See also John Gruden back loading his new contract to avoid Rebuplik of Confiscation state taxes until the Raiders move to Las Vegas.

Not "see also" some guy reported, but a declarative statement that it is true. That is what is known as a lie.

Whatever B.B. I posted a source. That is far better than we can hope for on your posts.