4 ms·

This doesn't really make sense to me. So it appears that the tax bill generally is reducing the tax code and closing loop-holes (which typically is considered "

This doesn't really make sense to me. So it appears that the tax bill generally is reducing the tax code and closing loop-holes (which typically is considered "good" to the left, and the right). In this case, it looks like the tax reductions are reduced in states that have higher taxes. Well that makes sense, because the states with lower taxes have less to write off (as they have 0% in some cases). Of course Texas would be impacted less, because they have no state income tax. New York and California have a state income tax, so the amount that loop holes help people in those states is much higher. So they effectively will be paying higher taxes. Complain to the state governments, who have crazy high taxes (part of the reason I left California)! This article honestly just seems to be trying to draw a correlation where there really isn't one. They are simplifying the tax code, that means reductions go away. Perhaps, we should lower taxes? I'd be in favor of that, but I'm also in favor of making it simpler to do my taxes.

davexunit 9y ago
This is possibly the worst interpretation of the tax bill I have seen yet, maybe excluding Mitch McConnell's ludicrous statement that the bill is either deficit neutral or reduces the deficit.
- whitehouse3 9y ago
  Maybe elaborate? Disparagement without correction doesn’t help other readers.
  - davexunit 9y ago
    It's well-established that the bill gives a tax break to the very wealthiest people and adds over 1 trillion to the deficit, not to mention that the bill manages to squeeze in allowing for oil drilling in protected arctic areas and anti-abortion legislation. After the the bill passes, the increase in the deficit will be offset by cutting social services like Medicare. This is a very, very, very bad bill, drafted in secret, and being rushed through without hearings or debate. The people in support of this bill should be ashamed of themselves.
- BeetleB 9y ago
  Maybe you can point out flaws with the comment?
ghouse 9y ago
I'm not aware of any person who lives in the US who has 0% (of state and local taxes which include income, payroll, property, and sales) Can you provide examples?
jacob019 9y ago
Yes, any change will have winners and losers. The winners will be happy, and the losers will be mad. We all support the idea of simpler tax code, but the devil is in the details. I'm not sure that eliminating the state tax deduction really simplifies anything though. It seems like a transfer of power from the states to the federal government.
- hcknwscommenter 9y ago
  "It seems like a transfer of power from the states to the federal government." Bingo, remember that the next time some politician tells you they are in favor of state's rights.
hcknwscommenter 9y ago
I agree with davexunit. Your analysis is flawed. First, you characterize state and local income and property tax deductions as "loop-holes." That's an interesting bit of logical acrobatics. In reality, the Senate bill hardly closes any loop-holes, and creates a myriad of new ones. For example, the whole pass-through craziness.
BeetleB 9y ago
There are legitimate criticisms of the bill (e.g. allowing corporations to deduct state taxes, but not individuals, or individual tax cuts expiring but the business ones are permanent). But putting those aside, I agree with you in principle. Of course the bill hurts people the most who are in high tax states. They want the high taxes, and they got it. Why should the rest of the country subsidize their federal taxes because they are paying more state income taxes? (Actually, there are some good reasons for this, but they should be debated rather than merely dismissing it as a bias against people in those states). And while I'm not 100% sure, the majority of the population is getting a tax cut - most people could not itemize with a $12000 deduction, and now they're getting another $3-4K ($12K - minus the personal exemptions they're losing).
- jonathankoren 9y ago
  The high tax states are generally the rich donor states. No one in Mississippi is subsidizing California. It’s actua quite the opposite.

davexunit 9y ago

This is possibly the worst interpretation of the tax bill I have seen yet, maybe excluding Mitch McConnell's ludicrous statement that the bill is either deficit neutral or reduces the deficit.

whitehouse3 9y ago
Maybe elaborate? Disparagement without correction doesn’t help other readers.
- davexunit 9y ago
  It's well-established that the bill gives a tax break to the very wealthiest people and adds over 1 trillion to the deficit, not to mention that the bill manages to squeeze in allowing for oil drilling in protected arctic areas and anti-abortion legislation. After the the bill passes, the increase in the deficit will be offset by cutting social services like Medicare. This is a very, very, very bad bill, drafted in secret, and being rushed through without hearings or debate. The people in support of this bill should be ashamed of themselves.
BeetleB 9y ago
Maybe you can point out flaws with the comment?

ghouse 9y ago

I'm not aware of any person who lives in the US who has 0% (of state and local taxes which include income, payroll, property, and sales) Can you provide examples?

jacob019 9y ago

Yes, any change will have winners and losers. The winners will be happy, and the losers will be mad. We all support the idea of simpler tax code, but the devil is in the details. I'm not sure that eliminating the state tax deduction really simplifies anything though. It seems like a transfer of power from the states to the federal government.

hcknwscommenter 9y ago
"It seems like a transfer of power from the states to the federal government." Bingo, remember that the next time some politician tells you they are in favor of state's rights.

hcknwscommenter 9y ago

I agree with davexunit. Your analysis is flawed. First, you characterize state and local income and property tax deductions as "loop-holes." That's an interesting bit of logical acrobatics. In reality, the Senate bill hardly closes any loop-holes, and creates a myriad of new ones. For example, the whole pass-through craziness.

BeetleB 9y ago

There are legitimate criticisms of the bill (e.g. allowing corporations to deduct state taxes, but not individuals, or individual tax cuts expiring but the business ones are permanent). But putting those aside, I agree with you in principle. Of course the bill hurts people the most who are in high tax states. They want the high taxes, and they got it. Why should the rest of the country subsidize their federal taxes because they are paying more state income taxes? (Actually, there are some good reasons for this, but they should be debated rather than merely dismissing it as a bias against people in those states). And while I'm not 100% sure, the majority of the population is getting a tax cut - most people could not itemize with a $12000 deduction, and now they're getting another $3-4K ($12K - minus the personal exemptions they're losing).

jonathankoren 9y ago
The high tax states are generally the rich donor states. No one in Mississippi is subsidizing California. It’s actua quite the opposite.