What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

One "flaw" of the tax system? (1 Viewer)

shadyridr

Footballguy
Can someone explain to me why they start phasing out credits for incomes over $110k when $110k in NY is a lot different than $110k in Idaho? Shouldn't these phase out amounts be different depending upon your residence?

Doesnt seem fair to me although I am not an accountant and perhaps just dont understand the logic.

 
In a much, much larger sense, my one "flaw" would be that the current system is almost completely "income" based, rather than "asset" based. A person is taxed on how much (or little) they add to their wealth, not on how much wealth they have. So a guy with $10m in asset but only $50k of income (extreme case, granted) pays less tax than a guy with no asset but $100k of income.

A tax blending both would be nice.

 
Can someone explain to me why they start phasing out credits for incomes over $110k when $110k in NY is a lot different than $110k in Idaho? Shouldn't these phase out amounts be different depending upon your residence?

Doesnt seem fair to me although I am not an accountant and perhaps just dont understand the logic.
Move to Idaho if you don't like it! ;)

 
Doesn't seem like a flaw to me. You want special treatment for living in New York?
No, the opposite. I want equal treatment. If the Child Tax Credit is $1000 and it starts to get phased out over $110k it should start to get phased out at a higher income in NY. Raising a kid in NY is much more expensive than most other states.

Im basically saying my income in NY is basically middle class while in other states it would be upper class. Yet our credits get phased out at the same income.

 
Doesn't seem like a flaw to me. You want special treatment for living in New York?
No, the opposite. I want equal treatment. If the Child Tax Credit is $1000 and it starts to get phased out over $110k it should start to get phased out at a higher income in NY. Raising a kid in NY is much more expensive than most other states.

Im basically saying my income in NY is basically middle class while in other states it would be upper class. Yet our credits get phased out at the same income.
Done.

 
Doesn't seem like a flaw to me. You want special treatment for living in New York?
No, the opposite. I want equal treatment. If the Child Tax Credit is $1000 and it starts to get phased out over $110k it should start to get phased out at a higher income in NY. Raising a kid in NY is much more expensive than most other states.

Im basically saying my income in NY is basically middle class while in other states it would be upper class. Yet our credits get phased out at the same income.
Choosing to reside in an area with a high cost of living and choosing to have children are not mandatory.

 
Why is your focus limited to credits? Seems your complaint extends to the entire method of computation.

 
The counter argument is the only reason why you are hitting the phase out is because of the location you live in. Salaries are higher in high cost of living areas. Sure, if you lived in Boise 110K would go further, but you'd only be making 75.

 
The counter argument is the only reason why you are hitting the phase out is because of the location you live in. Salaries are higher in high cost of living areas. Sure, if you lived in Boise 110K would go further, but you'd only be making 75.
Arent you essentially making my point for me? The equivalent would be 75k BUT I WOULD GET THE FULL CREDIT

 
The counter argument is the only reason why you are hitting the phase out is because of the location you live in. Salaries are higher in high cost of living areas. Sure, if you lived in Boise 110K would go further, but you'd only be making 75.
Arent you essentially making my point for me? The equivalent would be 75k BUT I WOULD GET THE FULL CREDIT
And?
His counter argument was actually my argument

In this scenario:

Idaho salary of $75k is equivalent to NY salary of $110k

Child Care Credit in Idaho would be $1000 for next $35k in salary

Child Care Credit in NY would begin phasing out immediately

 
The counter argument is the only reason why you are hitting the phase out is because of the location you live in. Salaries are higher in high cost of living areas. Sure, if you lived in Boise 110K would go further, but you'd only be making 75.
Arent you essentially making my point for me? The equivalent would be 75k BUT I WOULD GET THE FULL CREDIT
And?
His counter argument was actually my argument

In this scenario:

Idaho salary of $75k is equivalent to NY salary of $110k

Child Care Credit in Idaho would be $1000 for next $35k in salary

Child Care Credit in NY would begin phasing out immediately
Again, living in an area with a high cost of living is a choice. If you were told by the government that you had to live there you would have a valid argument.

 
Would this not just make the tax code incredibly more complicated, having to make all sorts of COL adjustments across the board?

 
Doesn't seem like a flaw to me. You want special treatment for living in New York?
No, the opposite. I want equal treatment. If the Child Tax Credit is $1000 and it starts to get phased out over $110k it should start to get phased out at a higher income in NY. Raising a kid in NY is much more expensive than most other states.

Im basically saying my income in NY is basically middle class while in other states it would be upper class. Yet our credits get phased out at the same income.
If you can't afford the neighborhood, maybe you should move. Asking the rest of the country to subsidize your federal taxes isn't going to go over well. The higher income in NY should cover the loss of the tax credit as well.

 
Even if others are being obtuse, I understand your point. However, I find it hard to find sympathy for a household making $110K in Staten Island, which is well above the $70K average for that area.

 
In a much, much larger sense, my one "flaw" would be that the current system is almost completely "income" based, rather than "asset" based. A person is taxed on how much (or little) they add to their wealth, not on how much wealth they have. So a guy with $10m in asset but only $50k of income (extreme case, granted) pays less tax than a guy with no asset but $100k of income.

A tax blending both would be nice.
Presumably, the money and assets were taxed when they were originally acquired. You think they should then be taxed every year?

 
Doesn't seem like a flaw to me. You want special treatment for living in New York?
No, the opposite. I want equal treatment. If the Child Tax Credit is $1000 and it starts to get phased out over $110k it should start to get phased out at a higher income in NY. Raising a kid in NY is much more expensive than most other states.

Im basically saying my income in NY is basically middle class while in other states it would be upper class. Yet our credits get phased out at the same income.
If you can't afford the neighborhood, maybe you should move. Asking the rest of the country to subsidize your federal taxes isn't going to go over well. The higher income in NY should cover the loss of the tax credit as well.
sorry, but I'm with the OP (and a ####### NYS/Long Island resident). A single overall number doesn't work for the entire country. Its not a matter of "you can't afford NY, get out of NY." It's that I can't control the way the overall CoL is being driven up, but at the same time, I can't be moving my family and career all over the country chasing a lower CoL.

If that was the mindset, then the entire middle class would be chased out and all you would have left is the higher class where the credit doesn't matter or the extreme lower where they fall under the line regardless.

What is the problem with state % of the average income. 0-35% gets the most benefits, 36-80% get middle of the road benefits and above that get fewer.

I'm no math major or tax collector, but It kills me when you have what Washington is claiming as "rich" in this country.

 
I sympathize with those who live in high COL areas because of family.

I don't see how you ever get ahead in those areas.

The incomes don't make up for all the additional layers of expenditures.. and the tax codes don't do you any favors.

For doctors and dentists... the irony is that generally the more horrible an area is to live in (thus lower COL) generally your income is higher and in many cases MUCH higher due to decreased supply and demand issues.

My dental buddies that live in crapville, MO have the ever so sweet combination of: Not having to advertise, paying lower staff wages than I do, lower building rents, getting to charge higher fees because there aren't as many insurance networks (insurance networks thrive when there is a huge number of providers to negotiate fees with)... all of that leads to a MASSIVE increase in profitability.... then their real estate is cheaper on top of that.

My sister could have made 50% more as an anesthesiologist had she been willing to take a position an hour outside of KC.

 
In a much, much larger sense, my one "flaw" would be that the current system is almost completely "income" based, rather than "asset" based. A person is taxed on how much (or little) they add to their wealth, not on how much wealth they have. So a guy with $10m in asset but only $50k of income (extreme case, granted) pays less tax than a guy with no asset but $100k of income.

A tax blending both would be nice.
Presumably, the money and assets were taxed when they were originally acquired. You think they should then be taxed every year?
Possibly (but obviously not at the same rate of an income tax). Or possibly your income tax rate is somehow tied to your level of asset/wealth.

 
In a much, much larger sense, my one "flaw" would be that the current system is almost completely "income" based, rather than "asset" based. A person is taxed on how much (or little) they add to their wealth, not on how much wealth they have. So a guy with $10m in asset but only $50k of income (extreme case, granted) pays less tax than a guy with no asset but $100k of income.

A tax blending both would be nice.
Presumably, the money and assets were taxed when they were originally acquired. You think they should then be taxed every year?
Possibly (but obviously not at the same rate of an income tax). Or possibly your income tax rate is somehow tied to your level of asset/wealth.
Ever see a tax you didn't love?

 
Even if others are being obtuse, I understand your point. However, I find it hard to find sympathy for a household making $110K in Staten Island, which is well above the $70K average for that area.
$110k (we actually make more combined) in Staten Island doesnt buy much. I own a 1300 sq foot home, own one car, have a second beater I use to drive to work. I am definitely not living the high life. This next year is gonna be rough with another kid on the way and my wife going out of work but hey at least Ill get more of my credit next year!

 
In a much, much larger sense, my one "flaw" would be that the current system is almost completely "income" based, rather than "asset" based. A person is taxed on how much (or little) they add to their wealth, not on how much wealth they have. So a guy with $10m in asset but only $50k of income (extreme case, granted) pays less tax than a guy with no asset but $100k of income.

A tax blending both would be nice.
Presumably, the money and assets were taxed when they were originally acquired. You think they should then be taxed every year?
Possibly (but obviously not at the same rate of an income tax). Or possibly your income tax rate is somehow tied to your level of asset/wealth.
Ever see a tax you didn't love?
I don't love any tax, especially as a self employed person who doesn't have an employer matching my contributions.

 
I never have really understood the purpose credits at all. Paying people money regardless if they work or not makes no sense. Make it a big deduction given only for those who actually work.

 
Here's an idea... move. If you don't want to, then your circumstances are kinda self-inflicted. :shrug:

My parents are selling a gorgeous 7500sqft 5br/6ba brick McMansion on a couple acres for $450k down here... But then you have to live in TN. Every place has it's pros and cons.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not a fan of child tax credits. That's your choice to have kids. The government shouldn't subsidize people procreating, imo.

 
I never have really understood the purpose credits at all. Paying people money regardless if they work or not makes no sense. Make it a big deduction given only for those who actually work.
It's a behavior incentive for things that the government wants people to do. .

By example: We want people to have kids who survive, especially poor people. There's no way to get people to perform cheap labor for the next generation unless poor people have kids that survive. The birth rate in the U.S. was dropping steadily for a long time prior to the child tax credit being introduced. In the 1950s, we had birth rates as high as 25+ per 1000 residents, and by 1997 that number was about 14.5. It's why you see the huge baby boomer retirement group, and the relatively small GenX workforce. The introduction of the child tax credit coincided with the first (albeit small) rise in birth rate in 8 years.

And then it dropped again because it's not really that much of an incentive to give people $1000 to have a baby. So, you know, less than 14 per 1000 now. Looking good, folks.

 
Here's an idea... move.

If you don't want to, then your circumstances are self-inflicted. :shrug:
I love when people say this like its such an easy, non-life changing decision that doesn't impact anyone else
There's always a butterfly effect.. no doubt. But it seems odd to say "I want the higher salaries of the city, but in the same breath complain about the cost of living and all resulting financial repercussions of getting that boost in income" :shrug:

Regardless... good luck with the new little one on the way GB. Hope things work out well for you guys.

 
Here's an idea... move.

If you don't want to, then your circumstances are self-inflicted. :shrug:
I love when people say this like its such an easy, non-life changing decision that doesn't impact anyone else
Seems like it would be easier to just pay your taxes.

I moved from KC to Denver to Phoenix to LA with my family. Then I took a pay cut to come back to Kansas. Sorry I don't want to subsidize your coastal lifestyle on the backs of the flyover workers.

 
I never have really understood the purpose credits at all. Paying people money regardless if they work or not makes no sense. Make it a big deduction given only for those who actually work.
It's a behavior incentive for things that the government wants people to do. .

By example: We want people to have kids who survive, especially poor people. There's no way to get people to perform cheap labor for the next generation unless poor people have kids that survive. The birth rate in the U.S. was dropping steadily for a long time prior to the child tax credit being introduced. In the 1950s, we had birth rates as high as 25+ per 1000 residents, and by 1997 that number was about 14.5. It's why you see the huge baby boomer retirement group, and the relatively small GenX workforce. The introduction of the child tax credit coincided with the first (albeit small) rise in birth rate in 8 years.

And then it dropped again because it's not really that much of an incentive to give people $1000 to have a baby. So, you know, less than 14 per 1000 now. Looking good, folks.
People get the credit regardless if they work at all.

And no way to get people -------> immigrants --------------> I could almost guarantee they would work harder as well

Disclosure - I have 4 kids btw and they are expensive as hell

 
In a much, much larger sense, my one "flaw" would be that the current system is almost completely "income" based, rather than "asset" based. A person is taxed on how much (or little) they add to their wealth, not on how much wealth they have. So a guy with $10m in asset but only $50k of income (extreme case, granted) pays less tax than a guy with no asset but $100k of income.

A tax blending both would be nice.
Presumably, the money and assets were taxed when they were originally acquired. You think they should then be taxed every year?
This.

Unless the plan is to keep taxing my $10m of assets until it is equally distributed and I am 'middle class' again.

 
In a much, much larger sense, my one "flaw" would be that the current system is almost completely "income" based, rather than "asset" based. A person is taxed on how much (or little) they add to their wealth, not on how much wealth they have. So a guy with $10m in asset but only $50k of income (extreme case, granted) pays less tax than a guy with no asset but $100k of income.

A tax blending both would be nice.
Presumably, the money and assets were taxed when they were originally acquired. You think they should then be taxed every year?
This.

Unless the plan is to keep taxing my $10m of assets until it is equally distributed and I am 'middle class' again.
:shrug: The current system of increasing tax rates for increasing income makes a system where it's very difficult to get out of middle class and to the point of having the $10m (top fed. income tax bracket of 39.6%). Taxing .5% or even 1% a year on $10m (or whatever) of asset could last well over someone's lifetime - especially considering that if the basis did decrease, then so would the amount of the tax.

 
I never have really understood the purpose credits at all. Paying people money regardless if they work or not makes no sense. Make it a big deduction given only for those who actually work.
It's a behavior incentive for things that the government wants people to do. .

By example: We want people to have kids who survive, especially poor people. There's no way to get people to perform cheap labor for the next generation unless poor people have kids that survive. The birth rate in the U.S. was dropping steadily for a long time prior to the child tax credit being introduced. In the 1950s, we had birth rates as high as 25+ per 1000 residents, and by 1997 that number was about 14.5. It's why you see the huge baby boomer retirement group, and the relatively small GenX workforce. The introduction of the child tax credit coincided with the first (albeit small) rise in birth rate in 8 years.

And then it dropped again because it's not really that much of an incentive to give people $1000 to have a baby. So, you know, less than 14 per 1000 now. Looking good, folks.
People get the credit regardless if they work at all.

And no way to get people -------> immigrants --------------> I could almost guarantee they would work harder as well

Disclosure - I have 4 kids btw and they are expensive as hell
Oddly, tougher to sell "let's bring in Mexicans and Syrians to perform cheap labor" than it is to sell a tax credit.

 
Here's an idea... move. If you don't want to, then your circumstances are kinda self-inflicted. :shrug:

My parents are selling a gorgeous 7500sqft 5br/6ba brick McMansion on a couple acres for $450k down here... But then you have to live in TN. Every place has it's pros and cons.
I'll take it....I mean can't be that bad, you got the Predators. Thats All I need.

 
It seems perhaps the point isn't NY vs. Idaho, or whatever market, it's more like if there's going to be a tax credit, don't phase it out based on some arbitrary income amount.

 
The largest flaw is that it is based on Income.. Move to a Consumption tax .. aka FairTax.. and this flaw you speak of goes :bye:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top