Trump flip flops on SALT Tax Deduction

[Anonymous]

I think it should not go that high. Rich folks are already getting enough break with taxes and raising the cap is giving them more money. Country is already going in enough deficit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see no logic to the SALT deduction. Why should some one get to pay less federal taxes because they elect to live in a high local tax jurisdiction?

It encourages wasteful spending and high taxes at the local level.

Exactly. Schools, parks, public recreation facilities, sidewalks, beaches or trails, police, fire, zoning, animal control, holiday celebrations, trash pick up, and so much more are paid for by your local taxes. None of this is wasteful per se, but if you live in a HCOL area and there is a small tax base and you want your community to provide lots of services your property taxes will be high if you own property. Move to a lower tax area with fewer services and/or worse schools if you don’t want to pay higher taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see no logic to the SALT deduction. Why should some one get to pay less federal taxes because they elect to live in a high local tax jurisdiction?

It encourages wasteful spending and high taxes at the local level.

If your state contributes more to the federal government than it receives—even after factoring in the SALT deduction—then why not allow the SALT deduction? But also, why stop at SALT? Should we also eliminate the mortgage interest deduction? Why should people who can’t afford to buy a home subsidize those who can?

I believe this issue could be addressed by applying income limits to the SALT deduction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no logic to the SALT deduction. Why should some one get to pay less federal taxes because they elect to live in a high local tax jurisdiction?

It encourages wasteful spending and high taxes at the local level.

If your state contributes more to the federal government than it receives—even after factoring in the SALT deduction—then why not allow the SALT deduction? But also, why stop at SALT? Should we also eliminate the mortgage interest deduction? Why should people who can’t afford to buy a home subsidize those who can?

I believe this issue could be addressed by applying income limits to the SALT deduction.

Most people don't itemize and thus no longer get the mortgage interest deduction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no logic to the SALT deduction. Why should some one get to pay less federal taxes because they elect to live in a high local tax jurisdiction?

It encourages wasteful spending and high taxes at the local level.

If your state contributes more to the federal government than it receives—even after factoring in the SALT deduction—then why not allow the SALT deduction? But also, why stop at SALT? Should we also eliminate the mortgage interest deduction? Why should people who can’t afford to buy a home subsidize those who can?

I believe this issue could be addressed by applying income limits to the SALT deduction.

It can’t be addressed by a cap because it is regressive and a cap won’t change that. Just like the mortgage tax benefits wealthy people. You need to earn and pay a lot for the SALT deduction to apply to you since it is used in place of the standard deduction. What’s not regressive is my blue state federal taxes subsidizing a child in Mississippi receiving Medicaid or SNAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see no logic to the SALT deduction. Why should some one get to pay less federal taxes because they elect to live in a high local tax jurisdiction?

It encourages wasteful spending and high taxes at the local level.

Well, then how about we end the blue states subsidizing the red states because the red states claim to be low tax/no tax zones but take more in from Blue State taxes than they pay into the system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no logic to the SALT deduction. Why should some one get to pay less federal taxes because they elect to live in a high local tax jurisdiction?

It encourages wasteful spending and high taxes at the local level.

If your state contributes more to the federal government than it receives—even after factoring in the SALT deduction—then why not allow the SALT deduction? But also, why stop at SALT? Should we also eliminate the mortgage interest deduction? Why should people who can’t afford to buy a home subsidize those who can?

I believe this issue could be addressed by applying income limits to the SALT deduction.

Most people don't itemize and thus no longer get the mortgage interest deduction.

They are not itemizing because of the SALT reform done in 2017.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no logic to the SALT deduction. Why should some one get to pay less federal taxes because they elect to live in a high local tax jurisdiction?

It encourages wasteful spending and high taxes at the local level.

Well, then how about we end the blue states subsidizing the red states because the red states claim to be low tax/no tax zones but take more in from Blue State taxes than they pay into the system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no logic to the SALT deduction. Why should some one get to pay less federal taxes because they elect to live in a high local tax jurisdiction?

It encourages wasteful spending and high taxes at the local level.

Well, then how about we end the blue states subsidizing the red states because the red states claim to be low tax/no tax zones but take more in from Blue State taxes than they pay into the system?

It’s a Federal INCOME TAX, deductions should be associated with producing INCOME. Your state taxes have no bearing on the ability to produce INCOME, so no deduction.

High state taxes also don’t promote some societal goal, like family formation. It’s really that simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no logic to the SALT deduction. Why should some one get to pay less federal taxes because they elect to live in a high local tax jurisdiction?

It encourages wasteful spending and high taxes at the local level.

Well, then how about we end the blue states subsidizing the red states because the red states claim to be low tax/no tax zones but take more in from Blue State taxes than they pay into the system?

It’s a Federal INCOME TAX, deductions should be associated with producing INCOME. Your state taxes have no bearing on the ability to produce INCOME, so no deduction.

High state taxes also don’t promote some societal goal, like family formation. It’s really that simple.

High tax states promote the 10th amendment and federalism. It is literally why the SALT deduction was created in the 1860s.

But I guess big government Trumpers no longer care about such ideals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no logic to the SALT deduction. Why should some one get to pay less federal taxes because they elect to live in a high local tax jurisdiction?

It encourages wasteful spending and high taxes at the local level.

Well, then how about we end the blue states subsidizing the red states because the red states claim to be low tax/no tax zones but take more in from Blue State taxes than they pay into the system?

It’s a Federal INCOME TAX, deductions should be associated with producing INCOME. Your state taxes have no bearing on the ability to produce INCOME, so no deduction.

High state taxes also don’t promote some societal goal, like family formation. It’s really that simple.

Almost none of the itemized deductions have to do with producing income. Charitable, mortgage interest, medical expenses, etc have nothing to do with it. On the other hand, things that do relate to producing income, like commuting costs and business clothes are not deductible for most people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no logic to the SALT deduction. Why should some one get to pay less federal taxes because they elect to live in a high local tax jurisdiction?

It encourages wasteful spending and high taxes at the local level.

If your state contributes more to the federal government than it receives—even after factoring in the SALT deduction—then why not allow the SALT deduction? But also, why stop at SALT? Should we also eliminate the mortgage interest deduction? Why should people who can’t afford to buy a home subsidize those who can?

I believe this issue could be addressed by applying income limits to the SALT deduction.

Most people don't itemize and thus no longer get the mortgage interest deduction.

They are not itemizing because of the SALT reform done in 2017.

Right so it now only benefits those with really high mortgages or who itemize for other reasons. Not the average person or low income

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no logic to the SALT deduction. Why should some one get to pay less federal taxes because they elect to live in a high local tax jurisdiction?

It encourages wasteful spending and high taxes at the local level.

Well, then how about we end the blue states subsidizing the red states because the red states claim to be low tax/no tax zones but take more in from Blue State taxes than they pay into the system?

It’s a Federal INCOME TAX, deductions should be associated with producing INCOME. Your state taxes have no bearing on the ability to produce INCOME, so no deduction.

High state taxes also don’t promote some societal goal, like family formation. It’s really that simple.

The logic is that since you already paid that portion of your income in (state and local) taxes, it isn't actually income you can use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no logic to the SALT deduction. Why should some one get to pay less federal taxes because they elect to live in a high local tax jurisdiction?

It encourages wasteful spending and high taxes at the local level.

Well, then how about we end the blue states subsidizing the red states because the red states claim to be low tax/no tax zones but take more in from Blue State taxes than they pay into the system?

It’s a Federal INCOME TAX, deductions should be associated with producing INCOME. Your state taxes have no bearing on the ability to produce INCOME, so no deduction.

High state taxes also don’t promote some societal goal, like family formation. It’s really that simple.

The public services (education, roads, public transportation, etc.) and aid for poor that is provided through those taxes isn't promoting a societal goal? Are you listening to yourself? Or maybe it's just that MAGAs don't think any of those things are actually important.