If I’m 20k into the 28% bracket the previously unlimited deduction would have allowed me to drop my taxable income enough to avoid that bracket entirely and that reduces my liability by 5,600 dollars (20,000 * 0.28). If I can only deduct 10k I end up saving only 2,800 dollars (10,000 * 0.28).

According to the tax foundation 90% of the SALT deduction’s benefit goes to people with incomes in excess of 100k/year.

Subsidizing homeownership should go away entirely. The rest of us shouldn’t have to help you pay for your home. The deductions for homeowners have always been at the expense of people that do not own and by extension can’t claim them. Either do something for everyone or cut out the home owner bull.

My money says most of the people that genuinely aspire to this sort of thing understand that the best way to approach it is to create/build the institution on their own. Leaving fate up to chance is for people that aren’t serious about the goal.

Everyone’s support for a cause depends on their personal calculations on how they benefit. We are fundamentally self-interested creatures. People don’t generally engage in activities where they believe they’re going to be net losers.

You’re essentially describing a purity test.

“The police are a deadly weapon. Once you set the police in motion people ending up dead is just what happens”

Werd?

Shhhhhh.

The data focuses on white people because racism requires a power disparity. White people’s racism is problematic because they have the power to act upon it.

There have been studies on this matter. It’s not up for debate.

I don’t think you understand what you said or how capitalism works.

What we’ve seen since Nov 2016 is that white people will white people. Thus far that has included continued support for Trump, voting for someone like Roy Moore, and is likely to include supporting/voting for many other well documented degenerates between now and then.

It sounds like you’re describing market adjustments that were combined with normal merit increases and not a “progressively tiered income increase”.

I meant her subordinates that are impacted by the move.

In my experience the people at the bottom of a company’s wage scale tend to get the biggest (percentage-wise) raises anyway.

You left out the part where the current benefits cap has to stay fixed. Asking a mostly upper middle class segment of the population to accept the biggest tax increase of a generation in exchange for nothing is an impossible sell. It also only amounts to kicking the can down the road rather than fixing the real…

Look at all the countries with safety nets that you admire and explain how exactly you came to the conclusion that everyone doesn’t need to pay more.

I think a better piece of advice would have been “stop wasting your co-workers’ time”. Send emails when you need to. Call for meetings when you need to. IM people when you need to. Visit their desk never. Seriously, don’t come to my desk for work unless the office is on fire.

I believe I gave you two options. People can decide that they care about this stuff, that they’re willing to be mature/make a sacrifice, and literally every American payroll tax payer (that includes businesses mind you, they do pay half of your share) can pay more to make it happen. Alternatively we can just cut the…