4 ms·
Well said. Thank you. As a disenfranchised Californian I will bang this gavel until I die. The loss of the SALT deduction hit our finances tremendously. 1. Dire
by jquery 4y ago
Well said. Thank you. As a disenfranchised Californian I will bang this gavel until I die. The loss of the SALT deduction hit our finances tremendously. 1. Direct impact via higher taxes. 2. People fleeing the state for lower tax states because without the SALT deduction, we have a race to the bottom infrastructure-wise (not that we didn’t already, but the SALT deduction dampened the effect somewhat).
This is the kind of BS law that can only pass when small states get to run roughshod over large ones.
- whatthesmack 4y agoWhy should the rest of the country subsidize your state's more burdensome tax regime? Removal of the SALT deduction just brings the federal tax code a bit closer to neutrality. If you choose to live in a place with high taxes, that's fine, but don't expect everyone else to help subsidize it.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y agoNarrow definition of "neutrality". What you're really going for is that the required service provision level by states should be as low as possible, and if any states wish to exceed that, other states should not need to subsidize it. Which would perhaps be OK if we had a better democracy, and the decision of a state to provide a very low level of public services truly reflected the desires of its inhabitants. However, all evidence points to the idea that states which actually operate at these lower levels also do their very best to limit the political influence of those would seek higher public service levels. What you're actually doing is allowing the priviledge of wealth (and power) in some states to percolate up to the federal level to make it harder for other states (and their own) to respond to public desire.