Yeah that was a good one; promise a tax cut for the rich, and give a slight tax cut to the rich in low tax states and screw people in high tax states (which happen to mostly be were the proposer of the tax cut didn't get votes anyway).
On the plus side, between the limit on SALT deduction and the increased standard deduction, the mortgage interest deduction is almost effectively dead; which is something that has needed to get removed, but nobody wanted to do it. Now it's technically there, but almost useless, so best of both worlds.
Except for the fact that landlords still have the full mortgage interest deduction (as is proper for any business loan in a system that taxes income/profit) meaning it’s harder for owner-occupants to bid against them for housing.
Do they fund the SALT deduction? NY and CA pay more in taxes to the Federal government than they receive back in inward investment. Sounds like it's the states with no state tax that are being subsised to me.
The 2017 “tax cuts” partially eliminated deductions for state and local taxes, capping them at 10k. This means people in high cost of living, high tax states effectively get taxed on income multiple times instead of being able to discount the money they already paid to state and local taxes above 10k.
SALT is “state and local tax”... you can deduct state and local taxes from your federal taxes, but a few years ago they put a cap on it so you can only deduct $10,000. This really hurt tax payers in higher tax states.
Let's be precise here. It only hurt tax payers whose itemized deductions exceeded the (new) standard deduction of $12k. There were more them in higher tax states because SALT was part of their itemized deduction. It had no impact on tax payers whose itemized deductions were below $12k, or who did not itemize.
I pay more now because of the SALT cap, but I still support the idea - why should residents of low tax states subsidize residents of high tax states, all other things being equal?
> I pay more now because of the SALT cap, but I still support the idea - why should residents of low tax states subsidize residents of high tax states, all other things being equal?
Under a federalist, state-first system, the federal government shouldn’t consider mandated transfers to state (including administrative subdivisions) government which plays the primary role in the conditions of local commerce which enables income as part of the free income of a taxpayer subject to taxation (this also avoids federal taxes altering the calculus of net benefit in state democratic decisionmaking on tax and spending.) In a federal-first, centralized system, ignoring state taxes consistently makes sense. In either case, a limited SALT deduction has no principled justification, and is simply an effort to use the power of federal tax policy to put a federal thumb on the scales of state decisionmaking to get the successful states whose economic success makes them net contributors to the federal government to adopt tax and spending policies more like those characterizing the politically-overrepresented but less successful states that are net drains on federal resources, leveling the playing field by making every place suck equally, so at least the former can’t make the latter look so bad any more, while advancing the Norquistian vision of shrinking the size of government to where it can be drowned in a bathtub, without concern for thr consequences, because ideology.
