[Andrew Cuomo] "Tax the rich! tax the rich! tax the rich! WE DID!! now . . . the rich leave."

Generally speaking, the SALT deduction was a deduction that shouldn't exist, it was a product of politics years past, but it's never been a good idea economically, with the federal government subsidising state taxes.

 

I am paying more in taxes for even someone richer in a red state to get a tax break - how is that fair again?

 

^^^

The GOP knew this would hurt Democratic states. Tit for tat would be slashing spending in rural areas.

 

Roll in the exit tax.

Then close the loop.

 

All deductions are based on history. Whether they should exist or not is purely subjective opinion.

Some honestly view SALT deductions as avoiding double-taxation. Should I be taxed by uncle same on money I never receive? You say "yes," but others say "no." It's not an objective topic. People simply have differing opinions, often tied to their own economic realities.

Should some states (like California and New York, et al.) pay more in federal taxes than they receive in total federal funding? Some say "no," and others say "yes." In current practice, the ayes have it. Some states subsidize other states, and with the new law, the citizens in the heavy-lifting states are now double-taxed. Oh well.

 

I am one of those who view SALT deductions as avoiding double-taxation. Without them, we are paying taxes on the tax dollars we are sending to the feds. I would love to go back to the pre-Trump tax status.

It is a little surprising to me that the "double-taxation" argument works more effectively with capital gains or estate taxes than it does with SALT taxes. (Yes, I know they are not the same, but the concept and argument is very similar.)

 

SALT deductions mainly hit wealthy people in California and New York that have been wanting everyone
to pay higher taxes anyway so they're probably happy to be paying more in taxes!!

Oh wait...or is it want OTHERS to pay more in taxes.

Progressives are very giving with others money, but less so it seems with their own based on their opposition
to this and their general lack of philanthropy.

 

I had been thinking about this since the statement , something along the lines of "there is enough money , just the wrong people have most of it" and I tend to agree with that to some degree … the people who do all the "work" whatever it may be are stuck in that $30k-$130k range while the CEO's are making 300-400 times the average employee and shareholders are also taking a piece of the pie.

I think the NBA came up with a unique way to handle that in the CBA with the revenue distribution guarantee's …. Everybody's making money now instead of just the stars and owners. Something similar would be my way of dealing with the wealth disparity top / middle. Limit the amount of profits companies can give to CEO's and shareholders while guaranteeing their "workers" a share. This raises the lower end of the scale dramatically while limiting the top from taking such a huge piece of the pie …. but I don't think anyone in Congress has the give a damn to do anything remotely similar.

 

Conservatives appear to have the same affliction.

 

Please elaborate.

 

There is the real problem. The federal government is subsidizing regardless because federal dollars aren't spent equal. How can we possibly define what is fair? I'm pretty sure Florida getting substantially more federal dollars than they pay in is pretty unfair to states with high income taxes paying out more than they receive.

 

Think Defense Contractors.

 

Except the reallocation of resources was pushed by the non-progressives to penalizes blue states in an obvious partisan attack.

But besides that you are spot on.

 

Yes, has always been that way. But the GOP decided to hypercharge the imbalance, while greatly growing the deficit too. Amazing trick, that.

 

I believe the new tax law, based on the evidence, will hit blue states harder than red states. Blue states were already paying, as we agree, more than their per capita share. The new bill seems to increase that imbalance, whether we think the original imbalance was justifiable or not. It's never been clear to me (other than the politics of spite) why we would need to further tilt the playing field. Cheers.