Quote (Goomshill @ Dec 15 2019 10:54pm)

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/474449-house-bill-to-temporarily-repeal-salt-deduction-cap-to-get-floor-vote

House Democrats are pushing a floor vote on a bill to repeal the Tax Cut and Jobs Act's SALT deduction cap of $10,000 and make it unlimited again.
rather than voting to repeal the entire tax cut, they're only focused on the one tax hike portion that affected wealthy new yorkers / californians.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/repealing-salt-cap-would-be-regressive-and-proposed-offset-would-use-up-needed
Based on the progressive CBPP's analysis, restoring the unlimited SALT deduction would give 96% of its benefits to the top 20% of tax filers, 56% to the top 1% of Americans alone, and essentially zero benefit to anyone in the three quintiles, the whole middle class and poor. Making this perhaps the single most regressive and elitist tax bill proposal to increase wealth disparity in recent memory. Whereas the actual Trump tax cuts were progressive and gave a disproportionate amount of benefit to the middle class and less than their proportional tax burden to the top 20% / 1%, this democratic bill would only benefit the rich and nobody else. But they did staple an inconsequential 37->39.6% top rate to it even though capital gains is what matters to these filers.

Of course the real story is that the SALT deductions were being used by California and New York to horde their taxpayer wealth into the state social services instead of sending it to the federal government. They could raise property taxes on millionaires, then let them deduct unlimited amounts from federal taxes, and the total tax burden stayed the same but a higher share went to their states. Which is precisely why the Republicans passed this SALT cap in the first place. So its actually doubly regressive, the Democrats want to keep rich states from having to give to poor states, while keeping rich people richer.

Quote (thundercock @ Dec 16 2019 01:34am)

LMAO. You mean middle class? My wife and I are pulling in a little under 400K per year (which is roughly 40K in SALT taxes) and we are renters.

Quote (Goomshill @ Dec 16 2019 12:10am)

400k per year is the top 5% by income distribution
That's not middle class by any stretch of the imagination, a GS-13 federal employee makes $77-100k

Quote (Goomshill @ 16 Dec 2019 07:54)

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/474449-house-bill-to-temporarily-repeal-salt-deduction-cap-to-get-floor-vote

House Democrats are pushing a floor vote on a bill to repeal the Tax Cut and Jobs Act's SALT deduction cap of $10,000 and make it unlimited again.
rather than voting to repeal the entire tax cut, they're only focused on the one tax hike portion that affected wealthy new yorkers / californians.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/repealing-salt-cap-would-be-regressive-and-proposed-offset-would-use-up-needed
Based on the progressive CBPP's analysis, restoring the unlimited SALT deduction would give 96% of its benefits to the top 20% of tax filers, 56% to the top 1% of Americans alone, and essentially zero benefit to anyone in the three quintiles, the whole middle class and poor. Making this perhaps the single most regressive and elitist tax bill proposal to increase wealth disparity in recent memory. Whereas the actual Trump tax cuts were progressive and gave a disproportionate amount of benefit to the middle class and less than their proportional tax burden to the top 20% / 1%, this democratic bill would only benefit the rich and nobody else. But they did staple an inconsequential 37->39.6% top rate to it even though capital gains is what matters to these filers.

Of course the real story is that the SALT deductions were being used by California and New York to horde their taxpayer wealth into the state social services instead of sending it to the federal government. They could raise property taxes on millionaires, then let them deduct unlimited amounts from federal taxes, and the total tax burden stayed the same but a higher share went to their states. Which is precisely why the Republicans passed this SALT cap in the first place. So its actually doubly regressive, the Democrats want to keep rich states from having to give to poor states, while keeping rich people richer.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Dec 16 2019 05:43am)

Exactly. Back when it was passed, I already said that the elimination of the SALT deductions was the best thing coming out of the Trump tax bill. These deductions allow blue coastal states like New York and California run their "socialism" without their own population having to shoulder the real cost - which then obviously makes these big government policies seem a lot more attractive than they objectively are. These deductions were a not-so-indirect subsidy of blue states by red states, of urban america by rural america. It of course fucked over Republicans living in these states, and imho contributed to the GOP's wipeout in California in 2018, but in the long run, it's sooo worth it.

Quote (A1RES @ Dec 16 2019 07:19am)

Please don't. Not another year under Trump

Quote (Goomshill @ 16 Dec 2019 13:14)

But the democratic counterargument to this, which I've seen repeated unironically, is that blue states are already subsidizing red states because they're richer and paying a larger share of the tax burden. So why should those groveling peasants in the red states be complaining when the blue states keep some of their hard earned money to pay for their own state programs. Or something thereabouts, said in earnest and without a hint of self-awareness for the fact they're echoing the argument rich people make against taxation that the occupy movement's anti-1%'ers railed against for years. EX;
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/us/politics/fact-check-state-local-taxes-republican.html

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Dec 16 2019 03:43am)

Exactly. Back when it was passed, I already said that the elimination of the SALT deductions was the best thing coming out of the Trump tax bill. These deductions allow blue coastal states like New York and California run their "socialism" without their own population having to shoulder the real cost - which then obviously makes these big government policies seem a lot more attractive than they objectively are. These deductions were a not-so-indirect subsidy of blue states by red states, of urban america by rural america. It of course fucked over Republicans living in these states, and imho contributed to the GOP's wipeout in California in 2018, but in the long run, it's sooo worth it.

Quote (thundercock @ 16 Dec 2019 19:17)

It seems odd to be that you'd support something like that. Isn't it better for the states to administer a program as opposed to the feds? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "shouldering" the real cost if they are paying a 10% STATE income tax ON TOP of a federal income tax. Red states are already net consumers of federal funds so now Blue states are paying a bit more. I suppose you could consider that a "not-so-indirect" subsidy but that really depends on what you consider a "fair share." Granted, Goomshill is correct in that the SALT cap is progressive taxation because the standard deduction is more than than enough for the lower middle class in CA.