SALT cap repeal

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

This should be something that everyone is board for.  Capping the SALT deduction hurts a lot of Republicans just as much as it hurts democrats.  

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-29/schumer-house-democrats-make-formal-push-to-repeal-salt-cap?srnd=premium&sref=knoriXqz

[TwiceHorn 31280]

Then they need to lower the standard deduction or otherwise undo the tax cut.

It gores my ox, bigtime, but the deduction eases the pain.

However, repealing the cap without increasing revenue one way or another is continued irresponsibility.

[Bateshorn 9903]

It’s a lot of lost tax revenue to help out a few states that rely heavily on the property tax.  
 

I get the Texans pain on this issue, but this is not exactly the most progressive use of federal tax dollars.

[TwiceHorn 31280]

2 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

It’s a lot of lost tax revenue to help out a few states that rely heavily on the property tax.  
 

I get the Texans pain on this issue, but this is not exactly the most progressive use of federal tax dollars.

As far as I can tell, a lot of states are as bad as Texas on property taxes and those that aren't make up for it with an income tax, to which this also applies.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

All but 10 states have state income taxes.  This would help on that front.  What needs to happen is we need to spend less on the DOD and give people this back in their pockets.  This was a massive hit with the Trump tax cuts.  And yeah, I am ok with the standard deduction going back down.  I would itemize anyway as I pay a shitload in state and local taxes.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

Let's be clear, this cap on the deduction was a way for Trump to tell his deplorable followers that he was sticking it to the coastal elites.  Come to find out, people in Texas who live in areas with high property values got screwed as well.

Know what other deduction the fucker did away with in those tax cuts, employee expenses subject to the 2% floor, which included home office.  Which in 2020, was a deduction most of us could have fucking used.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Then they need to lower the standard deduction or otherwise undo the tax cut.

It gores my ox, bigtime, but the deduction eases the pain.

However, repealing the cap without increasing revenue one way or another is continued irresponsibility.

I am 100% in surpport of undoing the entire 2018 "Tax cuts".  My federal taxes went up by 25% of so.  Tax cut my ass.  If you are a single employee who makes decent money, you got completely dicked by these "Tax Cuts".

[elfenix 34171]

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

repealing the cap without increasing revenue one way or another is continued irresponsibility.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

15 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

I actually disagree with repealing this. It is sketchy to say you get to deduct from your federal tax burden because you have an expensive house, or that a state should get to divert revenue that would otherwise go to the IRS in order to fill its own coffers with a jacked up state income tax.  

Do some people get reamed compared to what they paid in federal tax in 2015?  Yeah, I suppose.  But I don’t see the logic behind why this isn’t right, other than “I don’t want to pay more.”  

Our federalist system, along with our anti-government party, have decided that state and local governments or private enterprise should provide nearly all services that are ordinarily government provided in other countries.  Since this is the case, then state/local governments and/or service-providing pseudo government entities need to be able to collect before the IRS collects.

I'll even take it a step further. You should be able to deduct every cent of state/local/property/sales tax before even calculating your federally taxable income. Only clearly demarcated items like Medicare and Social Security should come before local taxes. 

The GOP is halfway to its endgame. They have made federal spending useless to the people. Now its time to reduce that spending along with revenue collection. States rights. 

And DC residents shouldn't have to pay federal taxes at all. 

Edited January 29, 2021 by FondrenRoad

[Brisketexan 104624]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Our federalist system, along with our anti-government party, have decided that state and local governments or private enterprise should provide nearly all services that are ordinarily government provided in other countries.  Since this is the case, then state/local governments and/or service-providing pseudo government entities need to be able to collect before the IRS collects.

I'll even take it a step further. You should be able to deduct every cent of state/local/property/sales tax before even calculating your federally taxable income. Only clearly demarcated items like Medicare and Social Security should come before local taxes. 

The GOP is halfway to its endgame. They have made federal spending useless to the people. Now its time to reduce that spending along with revenue collection. States rights. 

And DC residents shouldn't have to pay federal taxes at all. 

Don't forget the beating that it handed out to charities, which lost the ability to say "donate, it's deductible!" to a huge hunk of their donors.

My wife and I consciously donated MORE this past year, even knowing that not a penny of it would reduce our AGI, because we know firsthand what charitable entities are going through right now.  But I'm guessing that a lot of folks don't.

So, yeah, when the anti-gov't party has decided as you've noted in your first para, then money towards those needs to get priority.

I'd be fine with just a complete repeal of the tax cut.  It did nothing to improve the economy/economic activity, and dug our hole that much deeper.  It was bad fucking policy.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

Just repeal the entire tax cut and try to cut taxes again in a way that makes more sense. Don't apply band aids here and there.

[BradInATX 9208]

I actually disagree with repealing this. It is sketchy to say you get to deduct from your federal tax burden because you have an expensive house, or that a state should get to divert revenue that would otherwise go to the IRS in order to fill its own coffers with a jacked up state income tax.  
Do some people get reamed compared to what they paid in federal tax in 2015?  Yeah, I suppose.  But I don’t see the logic behind why this isn’t right, other than “I don’t want to pay more.”  

Yep. It's a progressive tax. One of the very few things Trump got right, even if done out of spite.

If you have a million dollar house you can afford to pay your taxes. You'll be alright.

[Bateshorn 9903]

55 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As far as I can tell, a lot of states are as bad as Texas on property taxes and those that aren't make up for it with an income tax, to which this also applies.

It’s mostly blue states (NY/NJ in particular) Texas is a Red State outlier. 
 

I was just making it specific to this board.  I’m just saying: restoring the full SALT deduction is expensive.

The Trump tax cut is total garbage because there was very little actual tax thought put into it.  The GOP was desperate to pass anything in 2017 to save his presidency, and they just threw together a hodgepodge of tax ideas and used reconciliation to pass it.  So they put in the SALT cap to both fuck blue states and also come up with some offsetting revenue to dodge the Byrd Rule.  

Edited January 29, 2021 by Bateshorn

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Yep. It's a progressive tax. One of the very few things Trump got right, even if done out of spite.

If you have a million dollar house you can afford to pay your taxes. You'll be alright.

I would normally agree, but federal taxes provide almost no services for anyone, much less the impoverished.  Progressive taxation needs to provide common and progressive services.  It isnt intended to be a money bonfire. The rich should pay more, but they should actually be paying for something and not paying just to pay. 

[BradInATX 9208]

I would normally agree, but federal taxes provide almost no services for anyone, much less the impoverished. 

Good point there, I didn't consider that.

"The rich should pay more, but they should actually be paying for something and not paying just to pay. "

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Don't forget the beating that it handed out to charities, which lost the ability to say "donate, it's deductible!" to a huge hunk of their donors.

My wife and I consciously donated MORE this past year, even knowing that not a penny of it would reduce our AGI, because we know firsthand what charitable entities are going through right now.  But I'm guessing that a lot of folks don't.

So, yeah, when the anti-gov't party has decided as you've noted in your first para, then money towards those needs to get priority.

I'd be fine with just a complete repeal of the tax cut.  It did nothing to improve the economy/economic activity, and dug our hole that much deeper.  It was bad fucking policy.

You still take standard deduction even with charitable giving being high?  Do you not have a mortgage on your house or something?  Walk me through the math if you don’t mind. We did standard deduction until this year when we bought a nice house (Austin shanty but whatever) so we itemized again and our charitable deductions reduce our AGI (family of 5 so I’d think my standard deduction would be higher than yours. Not a tax guy- just enter all my info on turbo tax without really understanding how it all works...

[Brisketexan 104624]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

I would normally agree, but federal taxes provide almost no services for anyone, much less the impoverished.  Progressive taxation needs to provide common and progressive services.  It isnt intended to be a money bonfire. The rich should pay more, but they should actually be paying for something and not paying just to pay. 

Also this.  I ended the year strong.....and I took a BEATING on taxes because of it.  Which is okay, because it meant I was making more money.

But I'd damned well prefer that more of those tax dollars went to actual things that benefit the people of this country (education, infrastructure, etc.) than another dozen F-35s.  And the way to make sure more of my dollars go to actually help people?  Let me keep more of them for local taxes and charities.

[Bateshorn 9903]

1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

It’s mostly blue states (NY/NJ in particular) Texas is a Red State outlier. 
 

I was just making it specific to this board.

 

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I would normally agree, but federal taxes provide almost no services for anyone, much less the impoverished.  Progressive taxation needs to provide common and progressive services.  It isnt intended to be a money bonfire. The rich should pay more, but they should actually be paying for something and not paying just to pay. 

This is not true. The earned income credit is one of the best poverty relief measures on the books.  The income tax also pays for all sorts of programs people love, like NIH and NOAA.  I’m not saying it’s perfect or even good,  but stop with this “the government is a total garbage fire from top to bottom” thought process.  

[Brisketexan 104624]

1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

You still take standard deduction even with charitable giving being high?  Do you not have a mortgage on your house or something?  Walk me through the math if you don’t mind. We did standard deduction until this year when we bought a nice house (Austin shanty but whatever) so we itemized again and our charitable deductions reduce our AGI (family of 5 so I’d think my standard deduction would be higher than yours. Not a tax guy- just enter all my info on turbo tax without really understanding how it all works...

The point is that it is capped.  I own a home in Austin, which I financed.  I have mortgage interest, and a big property tax liability, and usually some pretty sizable charitable deductions.

Total those up....and I'm well above the cap, so there's no point in even adding them up.  Once you've hit the cap, you could donate another $100k to charity, and $0 of that would be deductible.  I lose the tax-deduction benefit of additional SALT deductions over the cap amount.

[Brisketexan 104624]

1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

 

This is not true. The earned income credit is one of the best poverty relief measures on the books.  The income tax also pays for all sorts of programs people love, like NIH and NOAA.  I’m not saying it’s perfect or even good,  but stop with this “the government is a total garbage fire from top to bottom” thought process.  

I don't think it's all a garbage fire.  But I'll suggest that in terms of bang for your buck on the benefits provided to people by tax dollars, state and local taxes do more, dollar-for-dollar.  And of course, charities are often a huge bang-for-the buck in that respect.

[Bateshorn 9903]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

I don't think it's all a garbage fire.  But I'll suggest that in terms of bang for your buck on the benefits provided to people by tax dollars, state and local taxes do more, dollar-for-dollar.  And of course, charities are often a huge bang-for-the buck in that respect.

I think there is a nuanced conversation in here about federalism.  I also think there is a separate discussion about why so much of America is forced to seek charities for things that even second world nations cover as part of the social safety net.  
 

you’ll get no argument from me about excessive defense spending tho. 

[Brisketexan 104624]

5 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I think there is a nuanced conversation in here about federalism.  I also think there is a separate discussion about why so much of America is forced to seek charities for things that even second world nations cover as part of the social safety net.  
 

you’ll get no argument from me about excessive defense spending tho. 

All fair points.

The fact that my wife and I have sent thousands of dollars to the local food bank this year is infuriating.  Not because I'm mad about the money.  I'm mad at the fact that we needed to....and no matter what we did....it isn't enough.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

 

This is not true. The earned income credit is one of the best poverty relief measures on the books.  The income tax also pays for all sorts of programs people love, like NIH and NOAA.  I’m not saying it’s perfect or even good,  but stop with this “the government is a total garbage fire from top to bottom” thought process.  

NIH and NOAA are rounding errors when it comes to federal spending and I'd hardly call a tax credit a service. 

The federal government yo-yo is also damaging to those who desire long term stability. The tax cuts were designed specifically to punish blue state residents and also hinder revenue generation in those same states to prevent them from having the budget to provide gap services.  NYC provides pre-K for all, school lunch for all, guaranteed shelter, and numerous other services. I would love for these to be nationwide efforts, but we don't live in that nation. We live in a nation that wants to force NYC into canceling these programs. Now maybe Biden shores this up briefly, but we will still be at the mercy of the yo-yo.  Id rather just pay an increased NY tax and have steady services. Other states can do whatever they want. Keep SS and Medicare. Expand them even.  Have a small tax for admin and be done with it. If we need to have a war, Congress can come hat in hand to the states to fund it. 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The point is that it is capped.  I own a home in Austin, which I financed.  I have mortgage interest, and a big property tax liability, and usually some pretty sizable charitable deductions.

Total those up....and I'm well above the cap, so there's no point in even adding them up.  Once you've hit the cap, you could donate another $100k to charity, and $0 of that would be deductible.  I lose the tax-deduction benefit of additional SALT deductions over the cap amount.

Gotcha. I was thinking about hitting the (now higher) inflection point not something beyond that. 
thanks

last follow up- is the cap conceptually similar to the idea of AMT?  Acting as an expansion on that in practice?  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Also this.  I ended the year strong.....and I took a BEATING on taxes because of it.  Which is okay, because it meant I was making more money.

But I'd damned well prefer that more of those tax dollars went to actual things that benefit the people of this country (education, infrastructure, etc.) than another dozen F-35s.  And the way to make sure more of my dollars go to actually help people?  Let me keep more of them for local taxes and charities.

Come on now. Be realistic. You didn't only pay for F-35's. You also paid for several Trump vacations, several marked up Mar a Lago room packages for the secret service, and a secret service shitter next door to Ivanka's.

And I'd also limit that wasteful spending entirely. When you run for President, you do so knowing you will live in the White House. You can have a reasonable vacation, but outside of that, if you want to live elsewhere or travel leisurely, you should be on the hook for all the security bills. 

[Brisketexan 104624]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Come on now. Be realistic. You didn't only pay for F-35's. You also paid for several Trump vacations, several marked up Mar a Lago room packages for the secret service, and a secret service shitter next door to Ivanka's.

And I'd also limit that wasteful spending entirely. When you run for President, you do so knowing you will live in the White House. You can have a reasonable vacation, but outside of that, if you want to live elsewhere or travel leisurely, you should be on the hook for all the security bills. 

Meh.  Trying to write rules on that would be next to impossible.  I'd be happy with one simple rule: you can't spend federal dollars on any business or property you have any interest in.

If the POTUS has a second home in Crawford, or Boise, or Aspen, or wherever, and he wants to work from there, let him.  And pay the security tab for having Secret Service snipers on the road in.  But we digress.

Going down the "waste, fraud, and abuse" road is a pretty pointless exercise.  On a federal level, the big-ticket items are defense, medicare/medicaid, and SS:

We need SS reform (raise the caps -- yes, I personally would pay more), means-test at least the timing of SS payments out, etc.

We need to fix our approach to healthcare (we spend a shitload of money as a country -- not tax dollars, personal dollars -- for mediocre results).

And we don't need as many next-gen fighter planes.  And I LOVE cool fighter planes.

But the real point here is that the meat-and-potatoes benefits to the people on an every day basis happen at the state and local level (e.g., your schools, etc.).  So we should free up those dollars.

[elfenix 34171]

24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't think it's all a garbage fire.  But I'll suggest that in terms of bang for your buck on the benefits provided to people by tax dollars, state and local taxes do more, dollar-for-dollar.  And of course, charities are often a huge bang-for-the buck in that respect.

the states aren't currency issuers so the vast majority of spending needs to come from the feds, otherwise you end  up in the euro and that thing is designed to fail.

[Brisketexan 104624]

Just now, elfenix said:

the states aren't currency issuers so the vast majority of spending needs to come from the feds, otherwise you end  up in the euro and that thing is designed to fail.

But....they ARE taxing entities, so....yeah, I don't follow you.  Like, at all.

[elfenix 34171]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But....they ARE taxing entities, so....yeah, I don't follow you.  Like, at all.

they can't deficit spend. 

the federal government spends money into existence and taxes it back out.  because of that, it literally cannot run out of money.  it doesn't even have to borrow money, that's a choice that the federal government has made. 

the states, on the other hand, are much more constrained.  most have hard balanced budget requirements, and every single one of them must either tax or borrow the money that is spent. 

Edited January 29, 2021 by elfenix

[Brisketexan 104624]

5 minutes ago, elfenix said:

they cant' deficit spend.

Got it.  Correct.  But if state taxes are fully deductible, then they can tax more because the tax base can afford to pay incrementally more (that's how the Federal government's budgeting abilities can be passed on to the states -- through federal tax policy).

[elfenix 34171]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Got it.  Correct.  But if state taxes are fully deductible, then they can tax more because the tax base can afford to pay incrementally more (that's how the Federal government's budgeting abilities can be passed on to the states -- through federal tax policy).

not at all.  that's not robbing peter to pay paul, that's telling telling the apostles they need a shit load of wine and telling jesus he's not allowed to miracle up any.

the solution to "feds spend too much money bombing brown people and fighting wars against alien invaders" isn't to give the states more responsibility.  they're often just as shitty in their own, albeit much smaller, ways. 

Edited January 29, 2021 by elfenix

[shakahorn 1627]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Then they need to lower the standard deduction or otherwise undo the tax cut.

It gores my ox, bigtime, but the deduction eases the pain.

However, repealing the cap without increasing revenue one way or another is continued irresponsibility.

If you increase the money in taxpayer's pockets, won't they spend that on (mostly) taxable goods and services, thereby increasing revenues?

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

Count me as on board with this as well.  And it's not that I'm rich and have an expensive house, it's that I bought my house when the market was shit and it has become expensive since I moved into it.  Property value going up 10% every single year I've been here trying to catch up to the current market value of my house means I get a much larger tax bill every single year, and because of the caps I no longer have a place to lessen that blow.  So yeah, I hate the SALT caps.  Another reason to hate what Trump did to this country.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 On a federal level, the big-ticket items are defense, medicare/medicaid, and SS:

We need SS reform (raise the caps -- yes, I personally would pay more), means-test at least the timing of SS payments out, etc.

SS and Medicare have their own separate taxes. Raise or adjust them accordingly.  No means testing. Raise it even more instead.  I'm not even talking about those taxes. I'm talking about federal income tax. Defense eats up nearly all of it.

Outside of clearly delineated taxes/services like Medicare and SS, I wouldn't let the federal government collect taxes at all anymore. If we want accountability, there should be a defense tax, regulatory tax, and a small admin tax. That's it. All delineated.  If they want more for something, then they need to create a specific tax for it.

This is largely why SS and Medicare still exist even as they run into structural issues.  If they had been funded by a general tax increase, they would have already been completely abolished.  But as they are, they aren't subject to the whims of the yo-yo.  This is also why Medicare for all is a more workable long term plan than any of the other universal healthcare solutions. 

Edited January 29, 2021 by FondrenRoad

[Bateshorn 9903]

27 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Not only that, but even if someone’s position is that federal expenditures are useless (and I agree much of the budget is way bloated), what sense does it make to say someone from a state that doesn’t have a state income tax should pay more in federal tax than people in other states?  That’s an argument for cutting taxes across the board, not for saying people in some states should get to divert that money for themselves while people in other states should pay a higher effective rate to the feds (and they would be the ones who don’t even get the state services funded by state income tax). 

Also, the most obvious way to make a meaningful dent in federal spending and future deficits is to simply raise the age for Social Security.  We still use 65 as the retirement age just like when the program was created, even though that was basically the life expectancy when we created Social Security and now people live 15 to 20 years longer.   It would be the least popular policy proposal ever, but it’s inevitable that costs will skyrocket like they have if you don’t index Social Security to changes in life expectancy.

SS age is now 67.  Social Security Amendmemts of 1983 out front should have told ya.

[Brisketexan 104624]

3 hours ago, shakahorn said:

If you increase the money in taxpayer's pockets, won't they spend that on (mostly) taxable goods and services, thereby increasing revenues?

Yes, no, maybe.

Which taxpayer?

Put more money in the pocket of someone making $30k, or even $100k?  Yeah, most of that money will go right back into the stream of commerce.

Put more money in the pocket of someone making millions?  Most of that money is going to go park someplace, and stay there.  

"Trickle down" has been tried, and doesn't do, at all, what it was supposed to do.  If you want to increase the flow of dollars in commerce, you put those dollars in the hands of people who will spend them.  That means the lower and middle classes, not the rich.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

4 hours ago, shakahorn said:

If you increase the money in taxpayer's pockets, won't they spend that on (mostly) taxable goods and services, thereby increasing revenues?

Almost all (96 percent) of the benefits of SALT cap repeal would go to the top quintile (giving an average tax cut of $2,640); 57 percent would benefit the top one percent (a cut of $33,100); and 25 percent would benefit the top 0.1 percent (for an average tax cut of nearly $145,000). The remaining four percent of the benefit of removing the cap would go the middle class (i.e. middle 60 percent), for an average annual tax cut of a little less than $27.

 

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/health-and-economic-recovery-omnibus-emergency-solutions-heroes-act-may-2020/t20-7

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Got it.  Correct.  But if state taxes are fully deductible, then they can tax more because the tax base can afford to pay incrementally more (that's how the Federal government's budgeting abilities can be passed on to the states -- through federal tax policy).

This only works for those wealthy enough to itemize deductions. The standard deduction is more than 20% of joint income for most families. They aren't itemizing SALT.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

This only works for those wealthy enough to itemize deductions. The standard deduction is more than 20% of joint income for most families. They aren't itemizing SALT.

There are a lot of folks in that top quintile that aren’t wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. The Trump Tax Cuts were shitty and should be repealed in their entirety.

[TwiceHorn 31280]

5 hours ago, shakahorn said:

If you increase the money in taxpayer's pockets, won't they spend that on (mostly) taxable goods and services, thereby increasing revenues?

Goods and services are not taxed by the federal government, as a general proposition.  In a very indirect way, it might raise wages paid and taxes paid, but it would be shifting that burden of payment from the richer to the poorer.

It might be good for the economy.

But we don't need tax cuts, we didn't need one in 2017.  We need to cut spending and raise revenue.

As someone said when the tax cut was implemented, you don't cut taxes when everyone is relatively flush with cash.

[Okie State 3788]

Damn, if they do away with the higher standard deduction that means a tax hike for me. I don't have a big mortgage and my property taxes are peanuts compared to many people I know.

[Brew 3047]

10 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The point is that it is capped.  I own a home in Austin, which I financed.  I have mortgage interest, and a big property tax liability, and usually some pretty sizable charitable deductions.

Total those up....and I'm well above the cap, so there's no point in even adding them up.  Once you've hit the cap, you could donate another $100k to charity, and $0 of that would be deductible.  I lose the tax-deduction benefit of additional SALT deductions over the cap amount.

Ummmm, that’s not how any of this works. SALT cap is only on state and local taxes up to $10k. That adds to mortgage interest and charitable contributions to get your itemized deductions which has to exceed standard to then deduct. If you donate $100k to charity, you’re over the standard and each dollar counts. If you spend $100k on property tax, you only get the first $10k.

As far as the SALT deduction, I’m not sure why any of it is deductible. Kill mortgage interest and SALT both, neither should impact federal taxes. If you pay $50k in combined state tax / interest and I pay $20k, why should that matter to the IRS. 

Edited January 30, 2021 by Brew

[Brew 3047]

3 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

There are a lot of folks in that top quintile that aren’t wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. The Trump Tax Cuts were shitty and should be repealed in their entirety.

Not true, there were several components that made sense and provided simplified filing measures. There were others that were shitty. That is pretty standard. QBI is what should be attacked, it has been a boon for taxpayers that probably didn’t need it.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

13 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

There are a lot of folks in that top quintile that aren’t wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. The Trump Tax Cuts were shitty and should be repealed in their entirety.

Predominantly because of the extreme high cost of living in the location they chose to purchase and live. A work around would be to adjust the cap for cost of living, but why would you do that for the top 20% of wealthy Americans but not apply the same logic to minimum wage. 
 

The other option would be to vote for lower local taxes. I’m not sure how removing the cap in anyway helps affordable housing. Adding a tax break for homes over 600k seems counter productive, and increases the market for ever increasing prices. 
 

A tax cut for someone with a 20 million dollar mortgage on a Malibu beach house or Manhattan penthouse is insanity. 
 

Also repealing all of the tax cuts will be a direct tax increase on the middle class while proving a tax CUT for the top 20%.(SALT) 

Edited January 30, 2021 by ChickenSandwich

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

dp

Edited January 30, 2021 by ChickenSandwich

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

tp

Edited January 30, 2021 by ChickenSandwich

[FondrenRoad 4378]

11 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Predominantly because of the extreme high cost of living in the location they chose to purchase and live. A work around would be to adjust the cap for cost of living, but why would you do that for the top 20% of wealthy Americans but not apply the same logic to minimum wage. 
 

The other option would be to vote for lower local taxes. I’m not sure how removing the cap in anyway helps affordable housing. Adding a tax break for homes over 600k seems counter productive, and increases the market for ever increasing prices. 
 

A tax cut for someone with a 20 million dollar mortgage on a Malibu beach house or Manhattan penthouse is insanity. 
 

Also repealing all of the tax cuts will be a direct tax increase on the middle class while proving a tax CUT for the top 20%.(SALT) 

The low hanging fruit you are missing is repealing the corporate tax cuts that were part of the same bill and larger than the personal income tax cuts.

We are lucky that Trump didn't get that 2020 payroll tax IOU bill he wanted. That would have been a far bigger clusterfuck to undo. 

The thing about asking to cut local taxes is that local taxes actually pay for things. Federal taxes don't. Property values are high in Manhattan due to high demand. Demand is high because the city usually has adequate funding for services, police, schools, transit, and other infrastructure. Part of maintaining a safe desirable place also includes keeping poor people sheltered and fed.  All these things have costs. The federal government takes more money than state and local government and provides wars that nobody wants and corporate handouts.  With advertised SALT deductions, perhaps small cities in America would implement higher local taxes in order to stop their decay. Public amenities and infrastructure go a long way. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

The low hanging fruit you are missing is repealing the corporate tax cuts that were part of the same bill and larger than the personal income tax cuts.
We are lucky that Trump didn't get that 2020 payroll tax IOU bill he wanted. That would have been a far bigger clusterfuck to undo. 
The thing about asking to cut local taxes is that local taxes actually pay for things. Federal taxes don't. Property values are high in Manhattan due to high demand. Demand is high because the city usually has adequate funding for services, police, schools, transit, and other infrastructure. Part of maintaining a safe desirable place also includes keeping poor people sheltered and fed.  All these things have costs. The federal government takes more money than state and local government and provides wars that nobody wants and corporate handouts.  With advertised SALT deductions, perhaps small cities in America would implement higher local taxes in order to stop their decay. Public amenities and infrastructure go a long way. 

This.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

Corporate tax cuts should be a healthy debate of paying their fair share vs driving jobs and funds overseas for lower taxes. Agreed. 
 

Leaving the SALT tax cap in place does not require the local governments to lower their taxes, as it does not effect 81% of the population. It is also only 4 years old, and while I agree and understand your point about local services, what was preventing these tax raises for services during the decades preceding the 2016 tax cap?  
 

What percentages of these “small cities” population would even qualify for the cap?  5%?  1%. We know wealth is conglomerated in major population zones. The cities can raise taxes and still not have the overwhelming majority of their citizens reach the cap floor. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

Also, while we are on the subject, let’s talk about education funding. IMO, the whole community benefits from a good education system, however, some folks benefit more. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos wouldn’t be worth what they are today without educated workers. IMO, they and their companies should bear more of the burden of the education system than individuals. Yet, when companies open a new facility, they are given massive tax abatement to go there, thus shifting that responsibility away from them. The whole system is fucked up.

By the way, I believe corporations still get to deduct SALt taxes paid, so if they can still deduct them in full, individuals should as well. I’ll go one further, individuals should get to deduct the cost of their primary residence as well. Either through depreciation or through their rent payments. Money going to housing, which is a basic need, should not be taxed for anyone.