Trump flip flops on SALT Tax Deduction

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally would be better off with a higher SALT limit, all else equal, but it's clearly the right policy to limit or eliminate the deduction.

SALT deductions have been around since the 1860s. Why? Because it was considered Big Government overreach for the federal government to double-tax the states.

The United States’ first income tax was enacted in 1861, and tweaked in 1862. Both versions contained only one deduction; and, you guessed it, it was the SALT deduction! A recently minted political party called the Republican party controlled Congress and a Republican-party President occupied the White House for the first time (a 6’ 4” fellow named Abraham Lincoln). Records of why the SALT deduction was included in the first income tax are scarce, but there are documented statements by Congressional Republicans that may support two justifications. The first was federalism and keeping the Federal tax out of the orbit of State levies. The second was double taxation: preventing the Federal government from taxing a dollar that the States had already taxed. There is no record of political discord over the SALT deduction.

https://www.chamberlainlaw.com/tax-blawg/history-of-the-salt-deduction

Capping SALT deductions in 2017 was the radical policy.

I don't see anything here making a serious policy case for a SALT deduction (and no, "we've done it this way for a century" is not a serious case). The core issue is that SALT amounts to a federal subsidy of state taxes and mortgage interest in proportion to the taxpayer's income, with high income folks receiving a greater subsidy as a percentage and folks in high tax states receiving a higher level of subsidy. This makes no sense! Just eliminate the deduction and lower the rates by a couple percentage points until revenue is equalized.

The states with low/no state income tax are subsidized by wealthier states - ie the ones that tend to have higher state and local taxes. Seems a fair way to offset that.

Not PP, but disagree with this statement. How are states w/higher state income tax, subsidizing those with lower state income tax ? It’s not like the high tax states are sending part of their state budget to the Feds to spend for the benefit of all. Sure, you can say they have higher per capita income, so what, they pay more federal income tax as they should, but has nothing to with the state taxes. They would pay the same Federal tax if they lived in low tax states.

The reality is that states with higher tax rates have chosen to provide more services and better paid civil servants, compared to that of low tax states. They may also be inefficient in providing those services. The SALT deduction is a way to hide this from their citizens. I say let them pay the full freight. And if they don’t like it, move or complain at the voter box.

Here is a revised version with improved grammar, clarity, and flow:

⸻

It is well documented that higher-tax states pay more in federal taxes than they receive in return.

So how do higher-tax states subsidize lower-tax states? The answer lies in the fact that lower-tax states rely more heavily on federal funding to support their budgets.

That’s the essence of the subsidy. Even before the SALT cap change in 2017, high-tax states were still contributing more to the federal government than they received. Increasing the SALT deduction would simply reduce the extent to which high-tax states subsidize low-tax states.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally would be better off with a higher SALT limit, all else equal, but it's clearly the right policy to limit or eliminate the deduction.

SALT deductions have been around since the 1860s. Why? Because it was considered Big Government overreach for the federal government to double-tax the states.

The United States’ first income tax was enacted in 1861, and tweaked in 1862. Both versions contained only one deduction; and, you guessed it, it was the SALT deduction! A recently minted political party called the Republican party controlled Congress and a Republican-party President occupied the White House for the first time (a 6’ 4” fellow named Abraham Lincoln). Records of why the SALT deduction was included in the first income tax are scarce, but there are documented statements by Congressional Republicans that may support two justifications. The first was federalism and keeping the Federal tax out of the orbit of State levies. The second was double taxation: preventing the Federal government from taxing a dollar that the States had already taxed. There is no record of political discord over the SALT deduction.

https://www.chamberlainlaw.com/tax-blawg/history-of-the-salt-deduction

Capping SALT deductions in 2017 was the radical policy.

I don't see anything here making a serious policy case for a SALT deduction (and no, "we've done it this way for a century" is not a serious case). The core issue is that SALT amounts to a federal subsidy of state taxes and mortgage interest in proportion to the taxpayer's income, with high income folks receiving a greater subsidy as a percentage and folks in high tax states receiving a higher level of subsidy. This makes no sense! Just eliminate the deduction and lower the rates by a couple percentage points until revenue is equalized.

The states with low/no state income tax are subsidized by wealthier states - ie the ones that tend to have higher state and local taxes. Seems a fair way to offset that.

Not PP, but disagree with this statement. How are states w/higher state income tax, subsidizing those with lower state income tax ? It’s not like the high tax states are sending part of their state budget to the Feds to spend for the benefit of all. Sure, you can say they have higher per capita income, so what, they pay more federal income tax as they should, but has nothing to with the state taxes. They would pay the same Federal tax if they lived in low tax states.

The reality is that states with higher tax rates have chosen to provide more services and better paid civil servants, compared to that of low tax states. They may also be inefficient in providing those services. The SALT deduction is a way to hide this from their citizens. I say let them pay the full freight. And if they don’t like it, move or complain at the voter box.

Here is a revised version with improved grammar, clarity, and flow:

⸻

It is well documented that higher-tax states pay more in federal taxes than they receive in return.

So how do higher-tax states subsidize lower-tax states? The answer lies in the fact that lower-tax states rely more heavily on federal funding to support their budgets.

That’s the essence of the subsidy. Even before the SALT cap change in 2017, high-tax states were still contributing more to the federal government than they received. Increasing the SALT deduction would simply reduce the extent to which high-tax states subsidize low-tax states.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

Yeah yeah I used ChatGPT to fix my grammar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally would be better off with a higher SALT limit, all else equal, but it's clearly the right policy to limit or eliminate the deduction.

SALT deductions have been around since the 1860s. Why? Because it was considered Big Government overreach for the federal government to double-tax the states.

The United States’ first income tax was enacted in 1861, and tweaked in 1862. Both versions contained only one deduction; and, you guessed it, it was the SALT deduction! A recently minted political party called the Republican party controlled Congress and a Republican-party President occupied the White House for the first time (a 6’ 4” fellow named Abraham Lincoln). Records of why the SALT deduction was included in the first income tax are scarce, but there are documented statements by Congressional Republicans that may support two justifications. The first was federalism and keeping the Federal tax out of the orbit of State levies. The second was double taxation: preventing the Federal government from taxing a dollar that the States had already taxed. There is no record of political discord over the SALT deduction.

https://www.chamberlainlaw.com/tax-blawg/history-of-the-salt-deduction

Capping SALT deductions in 2017 was the radical policy.

I don't see anything here making a serious policy case for a SALT deduction (and no, "we've done it this way for a century" is not a serious case). The core issue is that SALT amounts to a federal subsidy of state taxes and mortgage interest in proportion to the taxpayer's income, with high income folks receiving a greater subsidy as a percentage and folks in high tax states receiving a higher level of subsidy. This makes no sense! Just eliminate the deduction and lower the rates by a couple percentage points until revenue is equalized.

The states with low/no state income tax are subsidized by wealthier states - ie the ones that tend to have higher state and local taxes. Seems a fair way to offset that.

Not PP, but disagree with this statement. How are states w/higher state income tax, subsidizing those with lower state income tax ? It’s not like the high tax states are sending part of their state budget to the Feds to spend for the benefit of all. Sure, you can say they have higher per capita income, so what, they pay more federal income tax as they should, but has nothing to with the state taxes. They would pay the same Federal tax if they lived in low tax states.

The reality is that states with higher tax rates have chosen to provide more services and better paid civil servants, compared to that of low tax states. They may also be inefficient in providing those services. The SALT deduction is a way to hide this from their citizens. I say let them pay the full freight. And if they don’t like it, move or complain at the voter box.

Here is a revised version with improved grammar, clarity, and flow:

⸻

It is well documented that higher-tax states pay more in federal taxes than they receive in return.

So how do higher-tax states subsidize lower-tax states? The answer lies in the fact that lower-tax states rely more heavily on federal funding to support their budgets.

That’s the essence of the subsidy. Even before the SALT cap change in 2017, high-tax states were still contributing more to the federal government than they received. Increasing the SALT deduction would simply reduce the extent to which high-tax states subsidize low-tax states.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

You are wrong. No state government pays a dime to the Federal government in taxes. Not one. This where this BS logic breaks down.

US citizens with the same income/deductions pay the same Federal tax, regardless of what state they live in. They may pay higher state taxes b/c they CHOOSE to live in a state with higher state tax rates. Hopefully, they feel they are getting something valuable for the higher state taxes. If not, then move to a state with a lower state income tax.

So own your CHOICE, pay your state taxes without Federal subsidy, and quit whining about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latest is $40k per household for earners under $500k.

This benefits low earners who inherited houses with high taxes and old people in big houses with high taxes. Both groups are fine.

Isn’t this always the problem with these carve outs, etc. This group or that group can claim it’s unfair, someone else unfairly benefits. Better to just not go there. No Federal tax break for state taxes. If you don’t like your state tax, move to another state.

I’m fine with my taxes. I’m against carve outs if SALT is expanded. I’m also against mortgage interest being written off up to $1M for homes bought before 2017 and up to $750K for homes bought after, which is an even more arbitrary carve out. End the carve outs!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally would be better off with a higher SALT limit, all else equal, but it's clearly the right policy to limit or eliminate the deduction.

SALT deductions have been around since the 1860s. Why? Because it was considered Big Government overreach for the federal government to double-tax the states.

The United States’ first income tax was enacted in 1861, and tweaked in 1862. Both versions contained only one deduction; and, you guessed it, it was the SALT deduction! A recently minted political party called the Republican party controlled Congress and a Republican-party President occupied the White House for the first time (a 6’ 4” fellow named Abraham Lincoln). Records of why the SALT deduction was included in the first income tax are scarce, but there are documented statements by Congressional Republicans that may support two justifications. The first was federalism and keeping the Federal tax out of the orbit of State levies. The second was double taxation: preventing the Federal government from taxing a dollar that the States had already taxed. There is no record of political discord over the SALT deduction.

https://www.chamberlainlaw.com/tax-blawg/history-of-the-salt-deduction

Capping SALT deductions in 2017 was the radical policy.

I don't see anything here making a serious policy case for a SALT deduction (and no, "we've done it this way for a century" is not a serious case). The core issue is that SALT amounts to a federal subsidy of state taxes and mortgage interest in proportion to the taxpayer's income, with high income folks receiving a greater subsidy as a percentage and folks in high tax states receiving a higher level of subsidy. This makes no sense! Just eliminate the deduction and lower the rates by a couple percentage points until revenue is equalized.

The states with low/no state income tax are subsidized by wealthier states - ie the ones that tend to have higher state and local taxes. Seems a fair way to offset that.

Not PP, but disagree with this statement. How are states w/higher state income tax, subsidizing those with lower state income tax ? It’s not like the high tax states are sending part of their state budget to the Feds to spend for the benefit of all. Sure, you can say they have higher per capita income, so what, they pay more federal income tax as they should, but has nothing to with the state taxes. They would pay the same Federal tax if they lived in low tax states.

The reality is that states with higher tax rates have chosen to provide more services and better paid civil servants, compared to that of low tax states. They may also be inefficient in providing those services. The SALT deduction is a way to hide this from their citizens. I say let them pay the full freight. And if they don’t like it, move or complain at the voter box.

Here is a revised version with improved grammar, clarity, and flow:

⸻

It is well documented that higher-tax states pay more in federal taxes than they receive in return.

So how do higher-tax states subsidize lower-tax states? The answer lies in the fact that lower-tax states rely more heavily on federal funding to support their budgets.

That’s the essence of the subsidy. Even before the SALT cap change in 2017, high-tax states were still contributing more to the federal government than they received. Increasing the SALT deduction would simply reduce the extent to which high-tax states subsidize low-tax states.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

You are wrong. No state government pays a dime to the Federal government in taxes. Not one. This where this BS logic breaks down.

US citizens with the same income/deductions pay the same Federal tax, regardless of what state they live in. They may pay higher state taxes b/c they CHOOSE to live in a state with higher state tax rates. Hopefully, they feel they are getting something valuable for the higher state taxes. If not, then move to a state with a lower state income tax.

So own your CHOICE, pay your state taxes without Federal subsidy, and quit whining about it.

No. Poorer states with lower income taxes take higher subsidies from the federal government for things like Medicaid, school lunches, etc.

When every state receives equal federal dollars per capita, then we can stop deducting state taxes.

[Anonymous]

SALT means the federal government is paying for 37% of the state taxes and mortgage interest of high-income taxpayers, but only 22-24% of state taxes/mortgage interest for taxpayers at the median income (or none if they take the standard deduction). That is not a sane policy, particularly when virtually every other feature of the tax code is aimed at progressivity. Just lower the rates and do away with the deductions!

[Anonymous]

I’d MUCH prefer he abandon the SALT than take Medicaid and snap away from those who need it. It will affect us all - hospitals will close, children will go hungry, the sick will get sicker and cost more to treat - and women will be the ones to suffer, caring for the elderly who get kicked out of the nursing homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally would be better off with a higher SALT limit, all else equal, but it's clearly the right policy to limit or eliminate the deduction.

SALT deductions have been around since the 1860s. Why? Because it was considered Big Government overreach for the federal government to double-tax the states.

The United States’ first income tax was enacted in 1861, and tweaked in 1862. Both versions contained only one deduction; and, you guessed it, it was the SALT deduction! A recently minted political party called the Republican party controlled Congress and a Republican-party President occupied the White House for the first time (a 6’ 4” fellow named Abraham Lincoln). Records of why the SALT deduction was included in the first income tax are scarce, but there are documented statements by Congressional Republicans that may support two justifications. The first was federalism and keeping the Federal tax out of the orbit of State levies. The second was double taxation: preventing the Federal government from taxing a dollar that the States had already taxed. There is no record of political discord over the SALT deduction.

https://www.chamberlainlaw.com/tax-blawg/history-of-the-salt-deduction

Capping SALT deductions in 2017 was the radical policy.

I don't see anything here making a serious policy case for a SALT deduction (and no, "we've done it this way for a century" is not a serious case). The core issue is that SALT amounts to a federal subsidy of state taxes and mortgage interest in proportion to the taxpayer's income, with high income folks receiving a greater subsidy as a percentage and folks in high tax states receiving a higher level of subsidy. This makes no sense! Just eliminate the deduction and lower the rates by a couple percentage points until revenue is equalized.

The states with low/no state income tax are subsidized by wealthier states - ie the ones that tend to have higher state and local taxes. Seems a fair way to offset that.

Not PP, but disagree with this statement. How are states w/higher state income tax, subsidizing those with lower state income tax ? It’s not like the high tax states are sending part of their state budget to the Feds to spend for the benefit of all. Sure, you can say they have higher per capita income, so what, they pay more federal income tax as they should, but has nothing to with the state taxes. They would pay the same Federal tax if they lived in low tax states.

The reality is that states with higher tax rates have chosen to provide more services and better paid civil servants, compared to that of low tax states. They may also be inefficient in providing those services. The SALT deduction is a way to hide this from their citizens. I say let them pay the full freight. And if they don’t like it, move or complain at the voter box.

Here is a revised version with improved grammar, clarity, and flow:

⸻

It is well documented that higher-tax states pay more in federal taxes than they receive in return.

So how do higher-tax states subsidize lower-tax states? The answer lies in the fact that lower-tax states rely more heavily on federal funding to support their budgets.

That’s the essence of the subsidy. Even before the SALT cap change in 2017, high-tax states were still contributing more to the federal government than they received. Increasing the SALT deduction would simply reduce the extent to which high-tax states subsidize low-tax states.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

You are wrong. No state government pays a dime to the Federal government in taxes. Not one. This where this BS logic breaks down.

US citizens with the same income/deductions pay the same Federal tax, regardless of what state they live in. They may pay higher state taxes b/c they CHOOSE to live in a state with higher state tax rates. Hopefully, they feel they are getting something valuable for the higher state taxes. If not, then move to a state with a lower state income tax.

So own your CHOICE, pay your state taxes without Federal subsidy, and quit whining about it.

You can frame it that way but that’s not the reality on the ground.

Low tax states take in more federal dollars than they pay out through its citizens. Hope that helps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally would be better off with a higher SALT limit, all else equal, but it's clearly the right policy to limit or eliminate the deduction.

SALT deductions have been around since the 1860s. Why? Because it was considered Big Government overreach for the federal government to double-tax the states.

The United States’ first income tax was enacted in 1861, and tweaked in 1862. Both versions contained only one deduction; and, you guessed it, it was the SALT deduction! A recently minted political party called the Republican party controlled Congress and a Republican-party President occupied the White House for the first time (a 6’ 4” fellow named Abraham Lincoln). Records of why the SALT deduction was included in the first income tax are scarce, but there are documented statements by Congressional Republicans that may support two justifications. The first was federalism and keeping the Federal tax out of the orbit of State levies. The second was double taxation: preventing the Federal government from taxing a dollar that the States had already taxed. There is no record of political discord over the SALT deduction.

https://www.chamberlainlaw.com/tax-blawg/history-of-the-salt-deduction

Capping SALT deductions in 2017 was the radical policy.

I don't see anything here making a serious policy case for a SALT deduction (and no, "we've done it this way for a century" is not a serious case). The core issue is that SALT amounts to a federal subsidy of state taxes and mortgage interest in proportion to the taxpayer's income, with high income folks receiving a greater subsidy as a percentage and folks in high tax states receiving a higher level of subsidy. This makes no sense! Just eliminate the deduction and lower the rates by a couple percentage points until revenue is equalized.

The states with low/no state income tax are subsidized by wealthier states - ie the ones that tend to have higher state and local taxes. Seems a fair way to offset that.

Not PP, but disagree with this statement. How are states w/higher state income tax, subsidizing those with lower state income tax ? It’s not like the high tax states are sending part of their state budget to the Feds to spend for the benefit of all. Sure, you can say they have higher per capita income, so what, they pay more federal income tax as they should, but has nothing to with the state taxes. They would pay the same Federal tax if they lived in low tax states.

The reality is that states with higher tax rates have chosen to provide more services and better paid civil servants, compared to that of low tax states. They may also be inefficient in providing those services. The SALT deduction is a way to hide this from their citizens. I say let them pay the full freight. And if they don’t like it, move or complain at the voter box.

Here is a revised version with improved grammar, clarity, and flow:

⸻

It is well documented that higher-tax states pay more in federal taxes than they receive in return.

So how do higher-tax states subsidize lower-tax states? The answer lies in the fact that lower-tax states rely more heavily on federal funding to support their budgets.

That’s the essence of the subsidy. Even before the SALT cap change in 2017, high-tax states were still contributing more to the federal government than they received. Increasing the SALT deduction would simply reduce the extent to which high-tax states subsidize low-tax states.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

You are wrong. No state government pays a dime to the Federal government in taxes. Not one. This where this BS logic breaks down.

US citizens with the same income/deductions pay the same Federal tax, regardless of what state they live in. They may pay higher state taxes b/c they CHOOSE to live in a state with higher state tax rates. Hopefully, they feel they are getting something valuable for the higher state taxes. If not, then move to a state with a lower state income tax.

So own your CHOICE, pay your state taxes without Federal subsidy, and quit whining about it.

Federal payments to certain states exceed federal income received from those states' taxpayers. Quit with your whiny analysis.

[Anonymous]

Just reached agreement on $40,000 SALT Max.

That is perfect. Does not really help the really rich. But really helps the people like me. One income, kids in college. But I live in Montgomery County with property taxes of soon to be $18,000 a year and my MoCo income tax is like $12,000 a year

My property taxes keep going up but the 10K limit stayed the same.

People in particular older people with high property taxes and no mortgage got slammed.

My 80 year old Aunt has a house on Long Island and a condo in Florida she bought years ago and her SS and RMDs are taxed at state level. This is a god send. She is a widow and only got standard deduction $14,600.

Now she can write off a ton more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just reached agreement on $40,000 SALT Max.

That is perfect. Does not really help the really rich. But really helps the people like me. One income, kids in college. But I live in Montgomery County with property taxes of soon to be $18,000 a year and my MoCo income tax is like $12,000 a year

My property taxes keep going up but the 10K limit stayed the same.

People in particular older people with high property taxes and no mortgage got slammed.

My 80 year old Aunt has a house on Long Island and a condo in Florida she bought years ago and her SS and RMDs are taxed at state level. This is a god send. She is a widow and only got standard deduction $14,600.

Now she can write off a ton more.

FYI SS is not taxed at the state level in FL or NY, or VA or MD, for that matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SALT means the federal government is paying for 37% of the state taxes and mortgage interest of high-income taxpayers, but only 22-24% of state taxes/mortgage interest for taxpayers at the median income (or none if they take the standard deduction). That is not a sane policy, particularly when virtually every other feature of the tax code is aimed at progressivity. Just lower the rates and do away with the deductions!

The mortgage interest is the same. And given the cap at $750,000 max mortgage and that anyone who bought before 2023 for most part has an extemely low mortgage rate it is not that valuable as it used to be.

Yes a buyer today taking a $750K loan at 7 percent a huge write off. But 40 percent home owners have no mortgage at all and anyone who bought 5 years or further back bought cheap and nearly all refinanced.

The Property taxes is far greater than mortgage write off the majority of people who bought over ten years ago.

The big gift in this is vacation home owners with no mortgage who DONT rent out property as now they can deduct the property tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally would be better off with a higher SALT limit, all else equal, but it's clearly the right policy to limit or eliminate the deduction.

SALT deductions have been around since the 1860s. Why? Because it was considered Big Government overreach for the federal government to double-tax the states.

The United States’ first income tax was enacted in 1861, and tweaked in 1862. Both versions contained only one deduction; and, you guessed it, it was the SALT deduction! A recently minted political party called the Republican party controlled Congress and a Republican-party President occupied the White House for the first time (a 6’ 4” fellow named Abraham Lincoln). Records of why the SALT deduction was included in the first income tax are scarce, but there are documented statements by Congressional Republicans that may support two justifications. The first was federalism and keeping the Federal tax out of the orbit of State levies. The second was double taxation: preventing the Federal government from taxing a dollar that the States had already taxed. There is no record of political discord over the SALT deduction.

https://www.chamberlainlaw.com/tax-blawg/history-of-the-salt-deduction

Capping SALT deductions in 2017 was the radical policy.

I don't see anything here making a serious policy case for a SALT deduction (and no, "we've done it this way for a century" is not a serious case). The core issue is that SALT amounts to a federal subsidy of state taxes and mortgage interest in proportion to the taxpayer's income, with high income folks receiving a greater subsidy as a percentage and folks in high tax states receiving a higher level of subsidy. This makes no sense! Just eliminate the deduction and lower the rates by a couple percentage points until revenue is equalized.

The states with low/no state income tax are subsidized by wealthier states - ie the ones that tend to have higher state and local taxes. Seems a fair way to offset that.

Washington State isn’t subsidized by wealthier states…

[Anonymous]

As someone who pays more than $10,000 in SALT each year and itemizes deductions, let me join the other people in this thread who would be better off if this policy changed but still recognize that letting people who make more money find additional tax shelters is unfair.

They should leave the cap as it is or ban deduction of state taxes outright, and they should also stop subsidizing my mortgage with that deduction, while they're at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone who pays more than $10,000 in SALT each year and itemizes deductions, let me join the other people in this thread who would be better off if this policy changed but still recognize that letting people who make more money find additional tax shelters is unfair.

They should leave the cap as it is or ban deduction of state taxes outright, and they should also stop subsidizing my mortgage with that deduction, while they're at it.

The SALT deduction has an income cap.