As the House and Senate head into their conference to work out a bill acceptable to both chambers, a few key differing provisions are getting a lot of attention. Corp AMT? Cap on mortgage interest deduction? FIFO accounting for individual stock sales? But the one item getting the most attention is the elimination of the SALT (state and local income and property taxes) deductions. I've followed the debate and, quite frankly, I'm a bit confused.
First of all, as a general rule, it's only the high income people living in high tax states living in high priced houses who are going to possibly have their Federal taxes raised if they can no longer deduct these expenses. Aren't these the very 1%er (and other "rich" folks) fat cats who the Dems have been screaming about getting all the benefits of the Republican tax cuts at the expense of the middle class? That they weren't paying their FAAAAIR share? Aren't these Dem politicians from NY, CA , NJ, IL MA, CT and the other high earner states talking out of both sides of their mouths? Do they want the "rich" to pay more or not?
I've seen all sorts of compromises being offered on this issue. The Reps must be thinking they need to assuage their few voters in these affected states. I don't agree. These states are getting enabled in their profligate (and many times, corrupt) spending at the expense of taxpayers in states that manage their budgets reasonably. Why is that fair?
The whole red herring about these states paying in more in Federal taxes than they receive is a crazy argument as well. Again, so what? If the fat cats have so much more earnings and live in rich neighborhoods, they are the people who ought to be paying more Federal taxes, regardless of what state they choose to live in. Focusing on Mississippi vs NY or NJ in terms of who gets the best deal on Federal outflows/taxes just proves the Dem' original point. Rich support the poor under the quasi-socialist society THEY'VE forced on the country. So, WTH are they complaining about now? It's working like they said it should......sheesh...
They never mention the middle class tax payers in their states. Why? Because the increased standard deduction and the fact that many of these people don't pay any SALT (or Federal) taxes at all may explain that. So, basically, the only group getting higher taxes (based on this) are the rich Dems who talk a good game, but aren't willing to walk the talk.
The last aspect of this that intrigues me is the talk that many high income types will head for low tax states as a result of this. OR, that the high tax states will have to start to control their spending and stop financing their state bureaucracies on the backs of taxpayers in other states. That's a good thing, isn't it? Especially for the non-fat cats who remain in those states....
I just hope either someone can explain the unfairness of this to me (consistent with Dem tax philosophy) or that the Reps hold the line on this. Allowing $10,000 mortgage interest deduction is enough of a concession, we don't need any more.
First of all, as a general rule, it's only the high income people living in high tax states living in high priced houses who are going to possibly have their Federal taxes raised if they can no longer deduct these expenses. Aren't these the very 1%er (and other "rich" folks) fat cats who the Dems have been screaming about getting all the benefits of the Republican tax cuts at the expense of the middle class? That they weren't paying their FAAAAIR share? Aren't these Dem politicians from NY, CA , NJ, IL MA, CT and the other high earner states talking out of both sides of their mouths? Do they want the "rich" to pay more or not?
I've seen all sorts of compromises being offered on this issue. The Reps must be thinking they need to assuage their few voters in these affected states. I don't agree. These states are getting enabled in their profligate (and many times, corrupt) spending at the expense of taxpayers in states that manage their budgets reasonably. Why is that fair?
The whole red herring about these states paying in more in Federal taxes than they receive is a crazy argument as well. Again, so what? If the fat cats have so much more earnings and live in rich neighborhoods, they are the people who ought to be paying more Federal taxes, regardless of what state they choose to live in. Focusing on Mississippi vs NY or NJ in terms of who gets the best deal on Federal outflows/taxes just proves the Dem' original point. Rich support the poor under the quasi-socialist society THEY'VE forced on the country. So, WTH are they complaining about now? It's working like they said it should......sheesh...
They never mention the middle class tax payers in their states. Why? Because the increased standard deduction and the fact that many of these people don't pay any SALT (or Federal) taxes at all may explain that. So, basically, the only group getting higher taxes (based on this) are the rich Dems who talk a good game, but aren't willing to walk the talk.
The last aspect of this that intrigues me is the talk that many high income types will head for low tax states as a result of this. OR, that the high tax states will have to start to control their spending and stop financing their state bureaucracies on the backs of taxpayers in other states. That's a good thing, isn't it? Especially for the non-fat cats who remain in those states....
I just hope either someone can explain the unfairness of this to me (consistent with Dem tax philosophy) or that the Reps hold the line on this. Allowing $10,000 mortgage interest deduction is enough of a concession, we don't need any more.
Last edited:
