6 ms·

This hypocrisy from the folks arguing to reinstate this deduction is staggering.

dmitrygr 5y ago
They are looking out for their own skin. NY and CA are bleeding people with money. People who pay those state taxes but soon won't. I never thought I'd move for tax reasons. I am moving to TX this year.
- aksss 5y ago
  Hopefully not to show up and (in)directly vote for more taxes/bonds, and the politicians that promote them.
  - dmitrygr 5y ago
    not even remotely, worry not. I am a libertarian who was de-facto forced to be here for work. No longer forced -> no longer here
  - disgrunt 5y ago
    The irony there is I know a lot of native Texans fleeing the state as they see the Californication of Austin spreading and only getting worse.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > NY and CA are bleeding people with money. Every analysis I've seen is that (1) CA has small net domestic out-migration, but (2) the domestic out-migrants are significantly less well off the domestic in-migrants, and (3) at least before the last couple years (Trump immigration restrictions and then the pandemic probably changed this in the short term, but neither is likely to persist in current form and effect) the net domestic out-migration was more than balanced by international immigration. California isn’t bleeding “people with money”, its bleeding “Americans without money”. Which is in part a sign of real issues that should be addressed, but its also in large part a symptom of success and the rich outbidding the poor for limited real estate.
jaybrendansmith 5y ago
The SALT deduction was in place because people are being taxed TWICE. It's very simple. They are taxed on their income by the state, then taxed on that same income by the feds. It's unjust. You can argue all day long who the tax impacts, and how they're all rich or whatever, but that doesn't change this simple fact. What astonishes me is the abject lying happening by folks such as the Heritage foundation. Check out this obviously false statement: "Double taxation occurs when the same income source is taxed twice by the same level of government." Huh?? What does the level of government have to do with anything? How about this gem: "Double taxation does not occur when your income is taxed at the state level to pay for state projects and again by the feds. Taxes at all levels of government should be lower, but this does not mean the federal government needs to subsidize state taxes and spending." Really?? It's astonishing to me how these people lie, then lie some more, then fabricate with straight faces. Check it out: https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/5-myths-about-the-state-and-local-tax-deductions-cap https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/5-myths-about-the-...
- tacitusarc 5y ago
  It's not clear to me why the federal government should accommodate the state taxation structures. That is, uncapped deductions effectively mean that federal taxes are applied after state taxes. Couldn't states provide a deduction based on federal taxes if they think this is unfair to residents?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > It's not clear to me why the federal government should accommodate the state taxation structures. There is potentially an argument for no SALT deduction, though I think a lot of factors (including federalism) weigh in favor of it, and that it is on-balance justified; its something on which there is reasonable disagreement. But that’s not the debate. The debate is between a limited SALT deduction designed to create federal pressure to force the more successful states to adopt tax and spending policies more like the least successful states, and an unlimited SALT deduction that lifts the federal governments thumb off state tax policy.
- 5y ago
dragonwriter 5y ago
> This hypocrisy from the folks arguing to reinstate this deduction is staggering. The deduction still exists. The current limit on the deduction was adopted fairly openly as way for the federal government to artificially incentivize state tax cuts. The effort to eliminate that limit isn’t an effort to ”save the rich”, its an effort to save the state taxes that support the state services that are part of the recipe for economic success in states on which the federal government disproportionately relies for tax revenues. Limiting the SALT deduction wasn’t about raising taxes on the rich, it was about increasing federal extraction from certain successful states in the short term, strangling those state governments in the medium term, and—in easily forseeable effect if perhaps not actual intent—torpedoing the national economy and tax base in the long term.)

They are looking out for their own skin. NY and CA are bleeding people with money. People who pay those state taxes but soon won't. I never thought I'd move for tax reasons. I am moving to TX this year.

aksss 5y ago
Hopefully not to show up and (in)directly vote for more taxes/bonds, and the politicians that promote them.
- dmitrygr 5y ago
  not even remotely, worry not. I am a libertarian who was de-facto forced to be here for work. No longer forced -> no longer here
- disgrunt 5y ago
  The irony there is I know a lot of native Texans fleeing the state as they see the Californication of Austin spreading and only getting worse.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> NY and CA are bleeding people with money. Every analysis I've seen is that (1) CA has small net domestic out-migration, but (2) the domestic out-migrants are significantly less well off the domestic in-migrants, and (3) at least before the last couple years (Trump immigration restrictions and then the pandemic probably changed this in the short term, but neither is likely to persist in current form and effect) the net domestic out-migration was more than balanced by international immigration. California isn’t bleeding “people with money”, its bleeding “Americans without money”. Which is in part a sign of real issues that should be addressed, but its also in large part a symptom of success and the rich outbidding the poor for limited real estate.

jaybrendansmith 5y ago

The SALT deduction was in place because people are being taxed TWICE. It's very simple. They are taxed on their income by the state, then taxed on that same income by the feds. It's unjust. You can argue all day long who the tax impacts, and how they're all rich or whatever, but that doesn't change this simple fact. What astonishes me is the abject lying happening by folks such as the Heritage foundation. Check out this obviously false statement: "Double taxation occurs when the same income source is taxed twice by the same level of government." Huh?? What does the level of government have to do with anything? How about this gem: "Double taxation does not occur when your income is taxed at the state level to pay for state projects and again by the feds. Taxes at all levels of government should be lower, but this does not mean the federal government needs to subsidize state taxes and spending." Really?? It's astonishing to me how these people lie, then lie some more, then fabricate with straight faces. Check it out: https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/5-myths-about-the-state-and-local-tax-deductions-cap https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/5-myths-about-the-...

tacitusarc 5y ago
It's not clear to me why the federal government should accommodate the state taxation structures. That is, uncapped deductions effectively mean that federal taxes are applied after state taxes. Couldn't states provide a deduction based on federal taxes if they think this is unfair to residents?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > It's not clear to me why the federal government should accommodate the state taxation structures. There is potentially an argument for no SALT deduction, though I think a lot of factors (including federalism) weigh in favor of it, and that it is on-balance justified; its something on which there is reasonable disagreement. But that’s not the debate. The debate is between a limited SALT deduction designed to create federal pressure to force the more successful states to adopt tax and spending policies more like the least successful states, and an unlimited SALT deduction that lifts the federal governments thumb off state tax policy.
5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> This hypocrisy from the folks arguing to reinstate this deduction is staggering. The deduction still exists. The current limit on the deduction was adopted fairly openly as way for the federal government to artificially incentivize state tax cuts. The effort to eliminate that limit isn’t an effort to ”save the rich”, its an effort to save the state taxes that support the state services that are part of the recipe for economic success in states on which the federal government disproportionately relies for tax revenues. Limiting the SALT deduction wasn’t about raising taxes on the rich, it was about increasing federal extraction from certain successful states in the short term, strangling those state governments in the medium term, and—in easily forseeable effect if perhaps not actual intent—torpedoing the national economy and tax base in the long term.)