5 ms·

Blue states tend to have higher income or property taxes to pay for the social services they provide. That has always (literally, since income tax was first ena

Blue states tend to have higher income or property taxes to pay for the social services they provide. That has always (literally, since income tax was first enacted) been tax-deductible on the Federal level. That deduction was removed as part of the recent tax bill.

extra88 8y ago
The deduction wasn't eliminated, it was capped. Because the standard deduction was increased, most people aren't worse off but people not just in blue states but in blue cities, where property values are much higher, are worse off. I care less about this and more about the fact that the federal government isn't bringing in enough revenue to cover its responsibilities.
- kbenson 8y ago
  > I care less about this and more about the fact that the federal government isn't bringing in enough revenue to cover its responsibilities. The cynic on me thinks this is by design. It's much easier to press for the removal of programs when you can point towards how we're continuously unable to avoid a deficit because of them...
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    That "strategy" hasn't ever worked before - at least, it has not resulted in significant numbers of programs being cut. (Or, rather, it hasn't resulted in significant dollars worth of programs being cut.)
    - extra88 8y ago
      I don't know if that's true or not, that it has never worked. When the amount budgeted to a program is not increased to cover the increased cost achieve what it's meant to achieve (e.g. pay for the medical coverage of the poor and disabled), that is effectively a cut. And Mitch McConnell is talking about making cuts to the big three social insurance programs to address deficits [0]. This comes after he championed and passed major reductions in tax revenue last year, to the benefit primarily of corporations and the very wealthy. [0] https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-calls-for-cutting-government-programs-to-deal-with-disturbing-debt https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-calls-for-cutting...
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        Fine, McConnell is talking. A lot of people have talked, over a lot of years. Let me know when actual cuts to actual budgets happen.
        extra88 8y ago
        I would rather those actual cuts not take place at all. Just because politicians like Paul Ryan haven't succeeded in their goals doesn't mean they aren't real. Certainly the popularity of the social insurance programs makes politicians, regardless of party, wary of cutting them but I expect that there have been cases where a bill with cuts has passed the House but failed in the Senate only because the need to get 60 votes to avoid a filibuster.
  - extra88 8y ago
    To the Republicans in power, tax cuts are always good in their own right but this secondary effect is also desirable.
manfredo 8y ago
I still don't really see why the elimination of this deduction was seen as unfair - and I live in California. Why should contributions to one's own State be subsidized by the Federal government via a tax cut? It doesn't seem right that I get to get out of paying federal taxes for the rest of the nation (which is, on average, poorer than California) by paying taxes to my own State. On the whole, this makes the tax structure more progressive, which I always thought was something liberals like.
- klipt 8y ago
  What's more progressive, public schools (benefit everyone) or private schools (benefit the rich)? Now consider that the tax bill makes private school tuition tax deductible, but state taxes that pay for public school non-deductible. Hardly progressive.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    You're missing the point: why should I get a tax break for funding my rich neighborhood, at the expense of the rest of the country's neighborhoods (most of which are almost certainly worse off than mine)? The addition of other subsidies is orthogonal to the capping of the state and local tax deduction.
    - klipt 8y ago
      > The addition of other subsidies is orthogonal to the capping of the state and local tax deduction. No, the context is important. The republicans would look a lot less hypocritical if they also capped tuition deductions, church donation deductions, etc, because the services those fund overlap a lot with what state taxes fund. As it is, the tax bill largely looks like a trampling of states rights to determine their own taxes, and a pushing of the conservative model of "private schools are better than public schools", "homeless shelters should be run by churches, not by the state" etc.
- ojbyrne 8y ago
  Saying the federal government "subsidizes" contributions seems backwards to me. The state takes its cut (being more local, they provide more services, etc, they should get first off the top). Then the Federal system takes their cut of what's left. Avoidance of double taxation is a long standing principle of taxes. And if other parts of the country are poorer, the Federal government should address that by its outlays, which it does: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/ https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the...

extra88 8y ago

The deduction wasn't eliminated, it was capped. Because the standard deduction was increased, most people aren't worse off but people not just in blue states but in blue cities, where property values are much higher, are worse off. I care less about this and more about the fact that the federal government isn't bringing in enough revenue to cover its responsibilities.

kbenson 8y ago
> I care less about this and more about the fact that the federal government isn't bringing in enough revenue to cover its responsibilities. The cynic on me thinks this is by design. It's much easier to press for the removal of programs when you can point towards how we're continuously unable to avoid a deficit because of them...
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  That "strategy" hasn't ever worked before - at least, it has not resulted in significant numbers of programs being cut. (Or, rather, it hasn't resulted in significant dollars worth of programs being cut.)
  - extra88 8y ago
    I don't know if that's true or not, that it has never worked. When the amount budgeted to a program is not increased to cover the increased cost achieve what it's meant to achieve (e.g. pay for the medical coverage of the poor and disabled), that is effectively a cut. And Mitch McConnell is talking about making cuts to the big three social insurance programs to address deficits [0]. This comes after he championed and passed major reductions in tax revenue last year, to the benefit primarily of corporations and the very wealthy. [0] https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-calls-for-cutting-government-programs-to-deal-with-disturbing-debt https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-calls-for-cutting...
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Fine, McConnell is talking. A lot of people have talked, over a lot of years. Let me know when actual cuts to actual budgets happen.
      - extra88 8y ago
        I would rather those actual cuts not take place at all. Just because politicians like Paul Ryan haven't succeeded in their goals doesn't mean they aren't real. Certainly the popularity of the social insurance programs makes politicians, regardless of party, wary of cutting them but I expect that there have been cases where a bill with cuts has passed the House but failed in the Senate only because the need to get 60 votes to avoid a filibuster.
- extra88 8y ago
  To the Republicans in power, tax cuts are always good in their own right but this secondary effect is also desirable.

manfredo 8y ago

I still don't really see why the elimination of this deduction was seen as unfair - and I live in California. Why should contributions to one's own State be subsidized by the Federal government via a tax cut? It doesn't seem right that I get to get out of paying federal taxes for the rest of the nation (which is, on average, poorer than California) by paying taxes to my own State. On the whole, this makes the tax structure more progressive, which I always thought was something liberals like.

klipt 8y ago
What's more progressive, public schools (benefit everyone) or private schools (benefit the rich)? Now consider that the tax bill makes private school tuition tax deductible, but state taxes that pay for public school non-deductible. Hardly progressive.
- manfredo 8y ago
  You're missing the point: why should I get a tax break for funding my rich neighborhood, at the expense of the rest of the country's neighborhoods (most of which are almost certainly worse off than mine)? The addition of other subsidies is orthogonal to the capping of the state and local tax deduction.
  - klipt 8y ago
    > The addition of other subsidies is orthogonal to the capping of the state and local tax deduction. No, the context is important. The republicans would look a lot less hypocritical if they also capped tuition deductions, church donation deductions, etc, because the services those fund overlap a lot with what state taxes fund. As it is, the tax bill largely looks like a trampling of states rights to determine their own taxes, and a pushing of the conservative model of "private schools are better than public schools", "homeless shelters should be run by churches, not by the state" etc.
ojbyrne 8y ago
Saying the federal government "subsidizes" contributions seems backwards to me. The state takes its cut (being more local, they provide more services, etc, they should get first off the top). Then the Federal system takes their cut of what's left. Avoidance of double taxation is a long standing principle of taxes. And if other parts of the country are poorer, the Federal government should address that by its outlays, which it does: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/ https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the...