Trump flip flops on SALT Tax Deduction

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree with this. Deductions should be for activity related to producing income, or encouraging some broad social goal, e.g., family formation. Having relatively high state income taxes satisfies neither of these. So no SALT deduction, period.

It's as if you paid zero attention to US history in high school - the 10th Amendment, the balance between federalism and states' rights, redistribution of federal tax intakes (ie. "fiscal union"), etc. These are the reasons why are had full deductibility of SALT for 160 years of American history.

Not surprising your eyes glazed over all of this in 11th grade.

Not the poster you're responding to, but just stop. You have, at best, a vague, ill-formed argument in support of SALT, and are ignoring the tradeoffs other posters have discussed above.

Even if limiting or eliminating SALT WERE to get in the way of "states' rights" in some material way (which I don't buy) you still have a losing argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree with this. Deductions should be for activity related to producing income, or encouraging some broad social goal, e.g., family formation. Having relatively high state income taxes satisfies neither of these. So no SALT deduction, period.

It's as if you paid zero attention to US history in high school - the 10th Amendment, the balance between federalism and states' rights, redistribution of federal tax intakes (ie. "fiscal union"), etc. These are the reasons why are had full deductibility of SALT for 160 years of American history.

Not surprising your eyes glazed over all of this in 11th grade.

Not the poster you're responding to, but just stop. You have, at best, a vague, ill-formed argument in support of SALT, and are ignoring the tradeoffs other posters have discussed above.

Even if limiting or eliminating SALT WERE to get in the way of "states' rights" in some material way (which I don't buy) you still have a losing argument.

Oh wow, that really settles the debate. Case closed!

It's crazy to see the GOP go in full support of double-taxation. It's all about a power grab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree with this. Deductions should be for activity related to producing income, or encouraging some broad social goal, e.g., family formation. Having relatively high state income taxes satisfies neither of these. So no SALT deduction, period.

It's as if you paid zero attention to US history in high school - the 10th Amendment, the balance between federalism and states' rights, redistribution of federal tax intakes (ie. "fiscal union"), etc. These are the reasons why are had full deductibility of SALT for 160 years of American history.

Not surprising your eyes glazed over all of this in 11th grade.

We had slavery for hundreds of years, doesn’t make right to keep it.

If this so fundamental, why didn’t Biden fix it ? He had an all Dem congress for the first two years. And apparently, would have gotten R support from Blue states to revise the tax law. I guess he slept through the same class.

Or maybe, it’s just not right to demand a tax deduction because your state government is inefficient with high taxes for expensive programs. And even Sleepy Joe knew this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree with this. Deductions should be for activity related to producing income, or encouraging some broad social goal, e.g., family formation. Having relatively high state income taxes satisfies neither of these. So no SALT deduction, period.

It's as if you paid zero attention to US history in high school - the 10th Amendment, the balance between federalism and states' rights, redistribution of federal tax intakes (ie. "fiscal union"), etc. These are the reasons why are had full deductibility of SALT for 160 years of American history.

Not surprising your eyes glazed over all of this in 11th grade.

We had slavery for hundreds of years, doesn’t make right to keep it.

If this so fundamental, why didn’t Biden fix it ? He had an all Dem congress for the first two years. And apparently, would have gotten R support from Blue states to revise the tax law. I guess he slept through the same class.

Or maybe, it’s just not right to demand a tax deduction because your state government is inefficient with high taxes for expensive programs. And even Sleepy Joe knew this.

High tax states are high tax because of public pensions. That’s really all it comes down to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The deduction itself has a cap. And only people with high incomes pay enough in taxes to need the higher deduction (or to itemize their deductions).

But I make way under 400K and pay high state taxes. People forget RMDs are gigantic many retired people. My math has me at $3 million by retirement in 401k that will be $113,370 in RMDs. By then with inflation I will pay 24k in property taxes and my wife wants to get a little beach condo that might be 6k property tax.

I live in Maryalnd so will have over 40K salt in retirement even though middle class. By 75 when RMDS happen with 50 years compounding nearly everyone in 2030s will have 7 figure 401ks

You are not MC. Stop.

Yes they are.

If you’re MC don’t buy a beach house. Rent a beach house for a week every summer and save your $$ for car repairs, an occasional restaurant meal, and other luxuries middle class people enjoy in 2025 with high inflation and tariffs.

I don’t want to subsidize Mike and Donna’s beach house at the shore though. My spouse and I make $900K and are mid-30s. We bought or house in a location with lower property taxes. I am a former social worker with three kids and I grew up in a poor state and felt a lot of stress about how my parents would afford basic necessities at times. I will subsidize kids and actual poor folks who need SNAP and Medicare all day long. I don’t want to subsidize people who don’t make a lot of money and bought homes with trust funds or people who bought in areas knowing those areas had obscene property taxes. It’s not like any of this information is hidden. And no one “needs” two houses. If you don’t want to pay property taxes on one house sell it or rent it out to cover the taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree with this. Deductions should be for activity related to producing income, or encouraging some broad social goal, e.g., family formation. Having relatively high state income taxes satisfies neither of these. So no SALT deduction, period.

It's as if you paid zero attention to US history in high school - the 10th Amendment, the balance between federalism and states' rights, redistribution of federal tax intakes (ie. "fiscal union"), etc. These are the reasons why are had full deductibility of SALT for 160 years of American history.

Not surprising your eyes glazed over all of this in 11th grade.

We had slavery for hundreds of years, doesn’t make right to keep it.

If this so fundamental, why didn’t Biden fix it ? He had an all Dem congress for the first two years. And apparently, would have gotten R support from Blue states to revise the tax law. I guess he slept through the same class.

Or maybe, it’s just not right to demand a tax deduction because your state government is inefficient with high taxes for expensive programs. And even Sleepy Joe knew this.

High tax states are high tax because of public pensions. That’s really all it comes down to.

It seems like they also generate more revenue for the federal government as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree with this. Deductions should be for activity related to producing income, or encouraging some broad social goal, e.g., family formation. Having relatively high state income taxes satisfies neither of these. So no SALT deduction, period.

It's as if you paid zero attention to US history in high school - the 10th Amendment, the balance between federalism and states' rights, redistribution of federal tax intakes (ie. "fiscal union"), etc. These are the reasons why are had full deductibility of SALT for 160 years of American history.

Not surprising your eyes glazed over all of this in 11th grade.

We had slavery for hundreds of years, doesn’t make right to keep it.

If this so fundamental, why didn’t Biden fix it ? He had an all Dem congress for the first two years. And apparently, would have gotten R support from Blue states to revise the tax law. I guess he slept through the same class.

Or maybe, it’s just not right to demand a tax deduction because your state government is inefficient with high taxes for expensive programs. And even Sleepy Joe knew this.

High tax states are high tax because of public pensions. That’s really all it comes down to.

It seems like they also generate more revenue for the federal government as well.

That’s a slippery slope. My husband lives in CT and works in NY. My company is based out of CA and I live in CT. CT isn’t generating anything in our scenario. We just happened to choose CT because - you guessed it - taxes in CT were lower than in NY or NJ. My husband has a four hour round trip commute from where we live (the most southern town in CT) to the Financial District where he works. If everyone whining about SALT moved two hours away from their job their taxes would probably be lower too, but instead people bombard DCUM of how they are at their breaking point after a week of commuting 45 minutes each way. Maybe recognize that you made a trade off and live with your decision instead of constantly complaining about how you are being victimized. This entire conversation is just beyond. All of these liberal people complaining about how they want a regressive tax policy back and how modifying SALT in 2017 violated their constitutional rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree with this. Deductions should be for activity related to producing income, or encouraging some broad social goal, e.g., family formation. Having relatively high state income taxes satisfies neither of these. So no SALT deduction, period.

It's as if you paid zero attention to US history in high school - the 10th Amendment, the balance between federalism and states' rights, redistribution of federal tax intakes (ie. "fiscal union"), etc. These are the reasons why are had full deductibility of SALT for 160 years of American history.

Not surprising your eyes glazed over all of this in 11th grade.

There’s just no reason that people like me with household incomes above $300,000 need to have our state taxes subsidized by other federal taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The deduction itself has a cap. And only people with high incomes pay enough in taxes to need the higher deduction (or to itemize their deductions).

But I make way under 400K and pay high state taxes. People forget RMDs are gigantic many retired people. My math has me at $3 million by retirement in 401k that will be $113,370 in RMDs. By then with inflation I will pay 24k in property taxes and my wife wants to get a little beach condo that might be 6k property tax.

I live in Maryalnd so will have over 40K salt in retirement even though middle class. By 75 when RMDS happen with 50 years compounding nearly everyone in 2030s will have 7 figure 401ks

I think if you’re retiring with $3 million and a little beach condo, you probably will be able to afford to pay the marginal additional taxes that you’d owe from not being able to deduct your full $30k in property taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree with this. Deductions should be for activity related to producing income, or encouraging some broad social goal, e.g., family formation. Having relatively high state income taxes satisfies neither of these. So no SALT deduction, period.

It's as if you paid zero attention to US history in high school - the 10th Amendment, the balance between federalism and states' rights, redistribution of federal tax intakes (ie. "fiscal union"), etc. These are the reasons why are had full deductibility of SALT for 160 years of American history.

Not surprising your eyes glazed over all of this in 11th grade.

We had slavery for hundreds of years, doesn’t make right to keep it.

If this so fundamental, why didn’t Biden fix it ? He had an all Dem congress for the first two years. And apparently, would have gotten R support from Blue states to revise the tax law. I guess he slept through the same class.

Or maybe, it’s just not right to demand a tax deduction [b]because your state government is inefficient with high taxes for expensive programs. And even Sleepy Joe knew this.

High tax states are high tax because of public pensions. That’s really all it comes down to.

It seems like they also generate more revenue for the federal government as well.

That’s a slippery slope. My husband lives in CT and works in NY. My company is based out of CA and I live in CT. CT isn’t generating anything in our scenario. We just happened to choose CT because - you guessed it - taxes in CT were lower than in NY or NJ. My husband has a four hour round trip commute from where we live (the most southern town in CT) to the Financial District where he works. If everyone whining about SALT moved two hours away from their job their taxes would probably be lower too, but instead people bombard DCUM of how they are at their breaking point after a week of commuting 45 minutes each way. Maybe recognize that you made a trade off and live with your decision instead of constantly complaining about how you are being victimized. This entire conversation is just beyond.[/b] All of these liberal people complaining about how they want a regressive tax policy back and how modifying SALT in 2017 violated their constitutional rights.

Agree with this, the greed on display here by the pro-SALT deduction crowd is disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree with this. Deductions should be for activity related to producing income, or encouraging some broad social goal, e.g., family formation. Having relatively high state income taxes satisfies neither of these. So no SALT deduction, period.

It's as if you paid zero attention to US history in high school - the 10th Amendment, the balance between federalism and states' rights, redistribution of federal tax intakes (ie. "fiscal union"), etc. These are the reasons why are had full deductibility of SALT for 160 years of American history.

Not surprising your eyes glazed over all of this in 11th grade.

We had slavery for hundreds of years, doesn’t make right to keep it.

If this so fundamental, why didn’t Biden fix it ? He had an all Dem congress for the first two years. And apparently, would have gotten R support from Blue states to revise the tax law. I guess he slept through the same class.

Or maybe, it’s just not right to demand a tax deduction because your state government is inefficient with high taxes for expensive programs. And even Sleepy Joe knew this.

High tax states are high tax because of public pensions. That’s really all it comes down to.

No that is idiotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree with this. Deductions should be for activity related to producing income, or encouraging some broad social goal, e.g., family formation. Having relatively high state income taxes satisfies neither of these. So no SALT deduction, period.

It's as if you paid zero attention to US history in high school - the 10th Amendment, the balance between federalism and states' rights, redistribution of federal tax intakes (ie. "fiscal union"), etc. These are the reasons why are had full deductibility of SALT for 160 years of American history.

Not surprising your eyes glazed over all of this in 11th grade.

We had slavery for hundreds of years, doesn’t make right to keep it.

If this so fundamental, why didn’t Biden fix it ? He had an all Dem congress for the first two years. And apparently, would have gotten R support from Blue states to revise the tax law. I guess he slept through the same class.

Or maybe, it’s just not right to demand a tax deduction because your state government is inefficient with high taxes for expensive programs. And even Sleepy Joe knew this.

High tax states are high tax because of public pensions. That’s really all it comes down to.

It seems like they also generate more revenue for the federal government as well.

But the state tax rate would have no bearing on federal revenue if you couldn't deduct your state taxes from your federal taxes – which would be better policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree with this. Deductions should be for activity related to producing income, or encouraging some broad social goal, e.g., family formation. Having relatively high state income taxes satisfies neither of these. So no SALT deduction, period.

It's as if you paid zero attention to US history in high school - the 10th Amendment, the balance between federalism and states' rights, redistribution of federal tax intakes (ie. "fiscal union"), etc. These are the reasons why are had full deductibility of SALT for 160 years of American history.

Not surprising your eyes glazed over all of this in 11th grade.

Not the poster you're responding to, but just stop. You have, at best, a vague, ill-formed argument in support of SALT, and are ignoring the tradeoffs other posters have discussed above.

Even if limiting or eliminating SALT WERE to get in the way of "states' rights" in some material way (which I don't buy) you still have a losing argument.

Oh wow, that really settles the debate. Case closed!

It's crazy to see the GOP go in full support of double-taxation. It's all about a power grab.

What on earth are you talking about?

The SALT debate is being driven by a handful of GOP holdouts who want lower taxes for their constituents. Hopefully all representatives share that goal. The question is whether this is better achieved via a rate reduction or via the feds paying a share of mortgage interest and SALT that increases in income. There is no serious case for the latter.

[Anonymous]

Here is a house in 50x100 lot that is 2,000 sf in Rockville centre Long Island 24k taxes

https://www.redfin.com/NY/Rockville-Centre/14-Dover-Ct-11570/home/20426624

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate this double taxation. The way the feds are becoming a joke of a govt we might as well just rely on the states and pay no federal tax at all or some fixed minimum to the defense and that's it. We get nothing else from them anyways.

That's the whole point of Trump's actions: to get you to think this way.