Make no mistake. This was a retributive act of vengeance on the part of Republicans against the blue states that are the social and economic engines of this country. The Blue states like California and New York contribute far more into federal coffers than they get back. In other words Democratic states subsidize the vast Republican welfare states that they won’t even acknowledge exists. It’s one of the mind boggling outrageous facts facing our country.
But because the big blue tax paying states don’t vote Republican, are not racist and do not support gunslinging abortion preventing execution happy Red states...they figured they’d put the big red middle finger up in our faces while they could. Their coming for the social security and Medicare that you’ve paid into you whole life and that they call an entitlement next. Be Aware.
7
Trump is the best thing to happen to Democrats since Roosevelt.
2
States have been arguing over unequal treatment since there were just 13 of us. It's a fact of life and the myth that this is a recent red vs blue kerfffle is nothing new. Stop sending us your bloated pay on demand tax invoices. You want to be Sanctuary States pay for your folly with the economic benefits you say more illegals will bring you. And by the way, your ability to deduct up to $750,000 mortgage interest payments is outrageous, stop subsidizing NY/CA/NJ etc. billionaires' palatial estates.
HAPPY NEW YEAR
6
I have to say, it's really been something to watch Democrats try and preserve these tax cuts for "working class" people. Everyone I know who works for a living is getting money back, even in blue states. So sorry you can't write off the ski house anymore.
6
A Terrible Precedent: Using Tax Law to attack another party.
The Republicans are weaponizing voting restrictions and congressional voting rules . They hope this will give they a permanent monopoly of power, which of course they will auction off the highest bidders. It works for them. Why shouldn't it work for everyone else? Isn't life a game where nothing really matters except winning?
2
Legal challenges, what a joke. How about they consider breaking the hold the unions have on their government workers???
5
Simple solution.
The populous, rich BLUE states need to expel as many Republicans as they can from their state delegations to the House and the Senate.
The rich PURPLE states need to do the same.
Alabama shows that even the poor RED states can get with the program and elect Democrats when they get the chance.
Republicans do not WANT to govern.
Republicans do not know how to govern.
Republicans want to wreck the government. Grover Norquist wants to "drown government in the bathtub" as he famously said. He has gotten many Republicans to sign his "never vote for taxes" pledge. He must be Steve Bannon's lost twin.
What business do they have in being in the government? Just to make problems and rip off tax money? What is the point for the vast majority of us in letting them do that?
Let's start by voting out as many Republicans as possible.
7
These states aren't telling the whole story. The standard deduction has doubled meaning the lower income folks are a-ok. The ones complaining are rich, make tons of money, live in big climate changing homes, drive big climate changing autos and can afford to pay more. P
5
The problem is blue states pay the taxes and red states get the money,no state should get more than 2 % more than they pay. The red state representatives in congress scream about big govt spending yet feed at the trough like gluttons.
19
Trump never met a slight that he did not like. Republicans never met a democrat that they could like. Add the two together and you have a country at war with itself. However this time there is a bit of overreach by taking away from the people and giving to corporations and military and a wall and a new embassy. The list goes on and on about the cozy almost crony capitalism that our new leaders in Washington want to embrace. Because they need their money to get elected. Again and again.
4
I LOVE how all these residents of Democrat-run states are now becoming True Believers in a smaller federal role in our lives.
WHY? Because their states' ''balance of payments'' with D.C. is so out of whack. Were we running the federal gov't like the Founders told us, those sums would be negligible. But enjoy your expensive state and city leaders, because They Just Mean So Well.
7
There are a lot of critical comments toward the high tax states on NYT Picks. First and foremost, anyone who thinks the high tax states have issues needs to understand that these states generate more taxes for the federal government than each state receives. The states mentioned have DENSE populations, which demand different expenditures than rural states. YOU CANNOT compare the two situations. It is disheartening that low tax states, which often use more federal money than high tax states, are disrespectful. I, for one hope CA, NJ, NY find loopholes so we can stick it to all the Republican constituents who voted for their representatives and senators. I hope we figure out how to give LESS to the federal government!!!! I hope every single red state who is dependent on federal aid gets stuck with getting constant flat tires from driving over potholes that NY, CA, and NJ fix for them!
12
It has been mentioned in a few comments, that the higher taxed BLUE States subsidize the lower taxed RED States. I urge the NYT to expose this issue in more depths. I don't understand why the Politicians never talk about this inequality, unless of course, it is fake news.
12
Wouldn't it be funny if enough Democrats from the highly populated and highly taxed blue states moved into less-populated and lower-taxed red states in order to reduce the taxes they pay, and in so doing, turned a few red states blue? Maybe enough states would be so solidly blue that Congress could never be controlled by Republicans again. I would laugh until I wet my pants, for sure. Then I would laugh more.
5
Time to outlaws public employee unions. Even socialist FDR was against them.
8
Trump has done exactly what Leftists and Liberals have demanded for decades — tax the rich and transfer that wealth to the working poor and middle class.
8
As someone who was born and raised in a Blue state, but has enough brains to live in a Red one, I am finding some of the comments written by Liberals as both comical and pathetic at the same time. You try to portray most Red states as backwards and poverty-stricken, while your Blue states are models of modernity and wealth. Well, the facts speak otherwise. In case you have not noticed, both people and businesses have been voting with their feet and heading to the South and to the West. Florida passed New York State in total population several years ago, and businesses large and small that were located in Blue states for a century or longer have finally had enough of the ridiculously high personal and business taxes, and have relocated all over the South, and to a lesser extent to the West. Now you cry that the Federal taxpayer will no longer be subsidizing your high state Income and Property taxes by severely limiting your ability to deduct them from your Federal Income Tax return. It was truly sad that it took a natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy to show the people of NY & NJ that despite the zillions of dollars they had been paying their entire lives in state and local taxes, their state and local governments were completely unprepared for what Mother Nature brought. The MTA is the perfect example of the theft and graft of your state and local governments. They take in money every second of every day, yet the NYC subways are literally crumbling before your eyes.
9
How odd and strange that liberals who always complain that the rich should pay more taxes are wailing about the rich about to pay more taxes :)
8
I think most of us--whatever our political or economic ideologies (unless we are millionaires and billionaires)--are victims of this unfair system. I live in California in a high tax property market. My wife and I do live in a house. My wife is an end-of-career teacher, and yes, she makes a decent income, but the only reason we are able to live in our house is: 1) The money we used to buy our current home came from equity built up in a home purchased thirty-years ago, before the bubble of the 1990s and 2000s. 2) We itemize deductions. Why is it "fair" for us to itemize deductions? (Many people commenting here are arguing that itemizing deductions is unfair.) I would argue that it "fair" because 1) we have little control over the arbitrary and inflated property values in California (our taxes are arbitrarily inflated to match this faux high housing value) 2) we are not really getting anything "special" by itemizing except for the ability to live in our home and 3) few Californians would be able to live in homes without the ability to itemize deductions (and I am not talking about people with multiple homes, or people with multi-million-dollar homes. I am talking about those of us who live modestly priced homes). How does the GOP not understand that 90% of itemizers are homeowners, and that the only way we stay in our homes (and pay our taxes) is by itemizing?
12
The payroll tax idea is bad. Payroll taxes are regressive. You can attempt to match total state revenues in the rates but you will be over charging lower paychecks and under charging higher. And you are only taxing Labor income. People with high capital earnings will get off scot free.
Payroll taxes are wrong in general. Why do we tax jobs in the US? Employer contributions just drive jobs out of the country. Worker contributions make minimum wage workers pay the highest rates and CEO's pay the lowest.
5
In my one county in New Jersey, we have over thirty police chiefs and school superintendents with less than 5% of the population of New York City. If our taxes are high, it may be due in part to rampant waste and overspending. Perhaps, this bill will induce our politicians to address some of the real issues, rather than coming up with cockamamie schemes.
20
Perhaps you should elect representatives that share your concerns.
Perfect example of the fallacious "blue states subsidize red states" argument:
"California is a donor state, meaning the people of California pay more into Federal tax revenue than [they] receive in Federal payments... Estimates range from 78 to 99 cents received for every dollar paid..."
Whether CA is a "donor state" or not depends on what gets counted as a federal payment. Would "78 to 99 cents" be the amount if "federal payments" included the income tax savings that Californians receive by deducting property taxes? Of course not. If those tax savings were counted as "federal payments," CA would be a "donee state" -- even more so if other adjustments were made: for example, if payments made to CA military families whose soldier is stationed at a base that protects people in CA, NV, AZ, OR, WA and UT, should those payments count as payments only to CA?
1
You logic is backwards. CA is a donor state. They will be expected to pay more federal taxes when the state deduction disappears. That means the their donation to poorly managed red states will be higher.
Military families? You think CA has a lot of military bases, military families, military retirees? Many of the facilities have been closed and the cost of living in CA has caused military families and retirees to other states.
Major military populations in the US
1) Fort Bragg North Carolina
2) Fort Campbell Kentucky/Tennessee
3) Fort Hood Texas
4) Fort Lewis Washington state
5) Fort Benning Georgia
6
When I first read the headline for this article, I was excited because I thought the cities and states with high cost were going to challenge the constitutionality of the caps on property taxes.
Everyone knows that high population density metropolitan areas are more expensive because of the costs associated with a much more costly per capita costs for: rail and highway infrastructure for commuting and providing replenishment of food and consumer goods, water, wastewater and sewage treatment, street lighting, traffic signaling, sidewalks, electric power for elevators, and escalators, communications, etc.
These metro areas are more costly but they also are essential to the geographically dispersed rural populations. The economic geography of dense urban areas makes sense mainly because we do not need to develop arable lands, forests, and rangelands that are essential to our quality of life, and health to incentivize the movement of people out of densely populated cities to this valuable natural resource needed to feed the growing population.
In short, penalizing populations in the dense urban areas is a mistake for future economic growth. In addition, these economically productive metropolitan areas are the engines of growth that permit the US to harvest, fish our valuable sources of food and building materials. This synergy cannot be preserved under this ill-conceived tax code.
13
There are Constitutional limits on the power to tax, including:
1. Due process of law;
2. Equal protection of the law;
3. Rule of uniformity and equity in taxation.
The GOP and the President have crossed the line by introducing inverted marginal tax rates depending upon how a person earns his living with no rational basis.
Why does labor from working receive the highest tax rates, while inherited wealth above the current $22 million exemption will be phased out to 0%?
How is it reasonable to owners of passthrough businesses or passive income far lower than doctors, nuclear engineers, software developer, scientists, who work to advance society? On what rational basis is the distinction made?
How can individuals be taxed on income paid to the state and no longer available to pay to the federal government. A business deducts state and local taxes and a host of other expenses.
This violates the Constitutional requirements for due process, equal protection and uniformity, as the President who signed the bill did not put his assets in a blind trust, and therefore would rightfully be accused and convicted of self dealing as it was written for his outsized benefit.
Writing tax policy in the margins of legislation in the dead of night is no way to run a developed country.
This must be fought in court houses and state houses, effectively abrogated, and decisively crushed.
34
So now the answer to the Republican tax cut is to cut taxes even more. I’m tired of the “tax and spend” argument - not to mention the “trickle down” lie. History has shown that these lies never deliver. Yes, we need responsible spending, but nothing is free. We need a reliable base of taxes at the Federal and State level to pay for services, infrastructure, social security, Medicare, and other vital services. We are by far the richest country in the world. When did we stop dreaming and thinking Big? To give gigantic tax cuts to Corporations is insane. Read the comments from the nations CEO’s. They all love it, but aside from a few “bonus” crumbs for some workers, the don’t know what to do with the gigantic windfall. I have an idea, why not tax them as they were, and use the money for paying down debt, infrastructure, education, and other worthy programs?
10
If people don't feel the tax cut in either lower taxes or higher wages (since companies are getting a large tax cut) then this will be viewed as a failure. The tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 were not really felt by the general public overall. As a result the public elected a different party in 2008 knowing a tax increase would occur and understood that the tax hike would not impact them as much as the top earners.
I like that several companies have announced they will raise wages on certain staffers and are giving bonuses to their employees. This is where people will feel the difference and companies will have to offer these items to stay competitive otherwise people will change jobs for those benefits. We have lived in a employer's market for quite some time and it's been moving to an employee's market.
I propose that states with blue legislatures and governor enact legislation that calculates the difference between what the ultra-rich and large corporations would have paid BEFORE the horrendous tax bill that they helped write, and what they will be paying NOW, and return those funds to that state's treasury, to be used to fund programs destined for federal cuts. It's only fair, and probably legal as a state's right.
1
Interesting argument about double taxation; if that works, does that mean the tax on corporate dividends is also unconstitutional? After all that represents a quadruple tax on corporate earnings, twice by each if the federal and state governments.
1
Rjm,
A corporation is a separate Corporate Person, with free speech (Citizens united), freedom of religion (Hobby Lobby) and already pays lower tax rates on NET rather than GROSS income than mere mortal persons, even though the Corporate Person may make billions.
The dividends received by individuals are given preferential tax rates over income earned from labor, as if it is a vice to work.
However, when I pay my dentist with after tax dollars, my dentist is taxed again.
Taxes are collected not just when money is collected, but transactionally.
In the case at hand, an individuals income is taxed by state and local authorities and no longer available to pay taxes. But they are taxed by federal authorities as if the money is untouched.
There are Constitutional limits to taxation, including Equal Protection, Due Process and Uniformity.
This tax scheme, which creates wide and unfounded distinctions in tax rates based on fixed geography and how income is derived (wage income, corporate income, passthrough income, passive investment income, estate and gift income) must be fought in the court system and the state houses.
9
The preamble to the constitution, the "mission statement" for the document, included "domestic tranquility" among it's goals. There is a constitutional meaning of “domestic tranquility” offered by USlegal.com: “Domestic Tranquility with regard to constitution is referred to peace among the states. Constitution gives power to federal government to squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states.” Here we have a partisan tax law targeted at the political leanings of the state one lives in. A blue state collects more taxes to provide more services? Sorry, those citizens lose a long-established deduction, even as the Blue states send more of their Federal taxes to support the needy in the Red states. Why are there more needy in such Red states? Because they deny public services that the ACA, or state funds, might offer. Take a ramble through the Preamble...Tranquility?
4
How many of the people on here who are so critical of the high tax states stop to wonder why there is a correlation between per capita income in a state and the tax burden? Maybe all those taxes aren't being wasted like so many Republicans seem to think, but are actually investments in people that pay off in higher per capita incomes? After all, how many poor states are in the high tax burden category and how many wealthy states are in the low tax burden category?
8
How about a Tax Fairness Act? It would guarantee that each State receives back in federal program- and lump-sum-grants no less than 95% of what its citizens pay in federal income taxes. In 2015, for example, NY citizens paid into the federal government $48 billion more than the State got back. If we received back the bulk of that money, there would be no need for high state taxes to support the programs that our citizens favor. Such a Tax Fairness Act also would call the bluff of the low-tax, anti-federal-government blowhard hypocrites in Kansas, Texas, Arkansas and other points south and west, which for decades have parasitically sucked money from CA, NY and the other rich States.
20
This would be tricky, but ideally states and municipalities should look for ways to make the federal government pay for the municipal and other services provided. Obviously, states can't directly tax the federal government, but they could impose or increase user fees for necessary services and facilities to make sure the federal government is contributing its fair share to state and local budgets. Eliminating the deduction for state income taxes and limiting the deduction for property taxes has the economic effect of the federal government refusing to bear costs it previously was paying (as a result of lost tax revenue due to the deduction). To even it up, find ways to make the feds pay directly.
Maybe, in addition, these high tax states could pass a law allowing medical doctors to prescribe that their patients eat food, as a preventive health measure. That way, your grocery bill could be deducted as a necessary medical expense.
3
Call me cynical if you like, but I'm surprised that so many commenters seem to think this "charitable contributions in lieu of taxes" proposal is actually going anywhere. The chances of that are slim to none, and Slim just left town.
On the remote chance that I'm wrong, I suspect the CA legislature would effectively nullify this idea by: (1) severely limiting the portion of one's state income taxes that can be earmarked for any particular charity (5%, for example); (2) defining "charity" broadly to include many spending categories that are normally funded with state tax dollars (for example: schools); and (3) reserving for the state almost total discretion to allocate "residual" tax revenues as the state sees fit.
As a result, if taxpayers allocate a great deal to, say, schools, and nothing to the DMV (likely in both cases, I'll predict), the CA state government can simply make a disproportionately low allocation to schools and a disproportionately high allocation to the DMV. Net result? No difference from what we now have.
But maybe CA taxpayers will at least FEEL as if they have some say in where their tax dollars are spent, and I suppose that will be helpful.
2
This seems to be the prevalent thinking, but I think it usually will be incorrect:
"After [2017], I expect my taxes will go up due to the SALT cap."
All else being equal, the $10K SALT-deduction cap would increase income taxes paid by most taxpayers. But all else is NOT equal. For most taxpayers, the very substantial reductions in tax rates will save them money even so. Some taxpayers will pay more because of the $10K SALT-deduction cap (and other reasons), but most taxpayers will pay less despite this.
The real defect in the tax law is NOT that it raises taxes for all but the super-wealthy -- Democrats overplay their hand when they make that argument -- but that it will increase the already-too-high national debt by $1.5 trillion. That's what opponents of the tax law should be focusing on. Instead, they weaken their credibility by arguing (almost always incorrectly) that only wealthy taxpayers will pay lower taxes. That just isn't so.
4
I am intrigued by the idea of having the State of California allow residents to voluntarily send donations to various State programs and use them to offset their State income tax. What State programs would Californians choose to subsidize? Schools and universities? Road repairs? Water storage? Cal Fire? Animal Control? State Parks? Public Health departments? Which would they allow to whither on the vine? How would the DMV keep going? This might be a good incentive for residents to pay closer attention to how their tax dollars are being used.
6
That's an interesting question, and leads to the possibility taxpayers could over-fund some areas and under-fund others. What happens if say State Parks end up with a surplus? I expect it may be only the more well off taxpayers who would participate, as they'd be the ones impacted by the SALT cap. Would that skew priorities?
As a fellow CA resident, I can assure you that the CA state government won't allow taxpayers to allocate any more than a very small portion of their state income taxes to any particular purpose. If there's one thing that state governments like, above all others, it's the ability to decide where tax dollars get spent. My very strong hunch is that, if this idea comes to fruition at all (which I doubt), a taxpayer will be limited to specifying a very small "universe" of possible "charities," and that the state government will retain full freedom to allocate residual tax dollars as it sees fit. The result? Tax dollars -- whether labeled "charitable donations" or just plain "taxes" -- will be allocated almost exactly as they would be allocated if this "change" were not implemented.
2
I can imagine that even California taxpayers whose State taxes remain below the deductible $10,000.00 might choose to instead make a "direct donation" to the State programs they feel are most important, just for the satisfaction of having a say in where their taxes go. I am sure that some programs would get over-funded and others neglected, so there would have to be a mechanism by which the State is allowed to balance that out. Still, it would be interesting to know what ordinary Californians actually wish our State government spent more money on, and where they think the State should economize. It sure would get folks more involved in what goes on in Sacramento, which would be a good thing for democracy.
Liberal state legislators defending the highly regressive SALT deductibility? Perverse.
They should be celebrating that most of their constituents will greatly benefit from the doubling of the standard deduction, not that the wealthiest may have to may more taxes.
10
Since the residents of low tax states seem to think they are doing New York, and other donor states a favor- how about this- people that need subsidized housing etc, since it is likely much less expensive in AL or LA or Arkansas or Tennessee, NY and NJ and CT etc can move the people in need of support to the less expensive states and provide the $ for the services their. Give them a voucher or a debit card or similar. Might save us a few $ and help them out so to speak.
3
To its credit, the NYT points out that most tax experts think the "double taxation" argument is going nowhere. If there were a stronger phrase than "going nowhere," I suspect most tax experts would agree with that one.
In the form now being presented, the "double taxation" argument concludes it's unConstitutional to tax any state/local tax twice.
But guess what? If that's what you mean by "double taxation," it's been going on for many years.
To cite just one of several possible examples, for many years, the federal "itemized deductions" form -- called "Schedule A" -- has offered the taxpayer a choice: deduct your state income taxes OR deduct your state sales taxes; you can't do both: If you deduct your state income taxes, you may NOT deduct your state sales taxes. In other words, the income you used to pay state sales taxes is taxed twice -- once when you pay those state sales taxes and a second time when you pay income tax on that income -- i.e. double taxation.
Again, that's the way the law has been for many years. Do you see now why so many tax experts think these "double taxation" arguments are going nowhere? Hard to believe the arguments will even be made.
Even apart from this obvious inconsistency, is there something in the Constitution that prohibits double taxation? Not that I've ever noticed.
2
The Red State/Blue State divide is actually the basis for the uncivil anti-democratic war launched by the Republican majority against the majority of citizens in our country. It is called unbridled greed. The Republican Party depends on this Red/Blue divide to survive - and even then it is only after gerrymandering and voter suppression is added to the mix. The Republican Party is owned and operated by a super-wealthy oligarchy that de facto now rules this nation. Telling Democrats and Blue States to drop dead is the GOP method for keeping their loyal under-educated religious fundamentalist base energized while obeying the orders that come from the GOP donors soak up the trillions being poured into their pockets at the expense of everyone else.
12
I'm having a hard time understanding the problem. Doesn't this make the tax code more progressive by increasing the tax burden on high income earners, which is supposed to be a good thing?
Also, for all of the commentators who complain that this increases the amount that rich states pay in taxes versus what they get back from the federal government, substitute "taxpayer" for "state" and you sound just like republicans! In fact you sound just like republicans who live in gated communities who want to cut state and local taxes bc you send your kids to private school and all your tax money flows to those "other" people, the "takers" as mitt Romney called them.
7
The tax burden is increased on many who do not qualify as high-income earners in many states. Many are middle-class folks who happen to own houses, and pay high state/local taxes relative to poorer (often red) states.
4
After this tax cuts for billionaires and 0.1% wannabes, I looked for the fingerprints on many of these ideas.
The goal is literally to eliminate any form of democratically elected government that benefits the citizenry.
Putting chains on all the institutions of democracy has literally been the goal of those who have inherited the beliefs of the John Birch Society.
I suggest reading the review and, preferably, the book. At first it seemed absurd, but the evidence is before our eyes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/books/review/democracy-in-chains-nanc...
3
This tax bill seems to be aimed at turning the entire country into Arkansas. Having lived in both blue states and grown up in a red state, where I still do business, and pay property taxes in red and blue states, I can tell you categorically that blue states are preferable.
Some commenters seem to believe that blue states' taxes are high because there is rampant waste. They ignore the fact that voters in blue states choose to pay higher taxes, because they recognize that they receive better services. This bill seeks to tip the balance by unfairly taxing those states.
Texas, where I grew up, is a disaster area. The state government has cut services to the bone. The inequity and cruelty infects every aspect of daily life. Massachusetts, while far from perfect, is humane - people here can rely upon fairly consistent public schools, medical care, and other public services.
15
Fairly consistent public schools? How about Lawrence, Lowell, Fall River, Springfield, New Bedford? Are those consistent with Newton, Lexington, Belmont, Chestnut Hill, Sudbury?
I think that the biggest example of waste, fraud and abuse in terms of highway funds, was: The Big Dig. Strong access to Federal dollars created an irresistible desire to waste huge sums of money. And then there was the MWRA. And currently the MBTA.
I know that there are lots of problems with corporations but making a big pile of money available to anyone invites abuse.
2
Most people probably have figured this out, but it's time you did if you haven't.
The new tax law eliminates personal exemptions, which means ALL taxpayers pay higher taxes. It offsets this elimination with a much higher standard deduction. On balance, this is an improvement -- IF you take the standard deduction rather than itemize.
But if you DO itemize, the standard deduction is irrelevant to you. It wouldn't matter if they tripled it, or quadrupled it, or whatever, because you're not taking it. You're itemizing instead.
In short, if you DON'T itemize, the boosted standard deduction will more than offset the loss of personal exemptions. If you DO itemize, however, you'll suffer from the loss of personal exemptions, but won't benefit from the increased standard deduction.
In case it's not obvious, the intent of these changes is to encourage more taxpayers just to take the standard deduction rather than itemize. And that's expected to happen: Right now, 30% of taxpayers itemize deductions; that's expected to drop to 10%.
6
That should simplify a lot of tax returns.
3
States should quickly increase taxes on wealthy to 91% like was done during WWII and the postwar period America was stronger then. High tax rates make a country strong!
8
I remember the 91% days, and recently learned that the top rate was even higher when Eisenhower was President: 92%. But I also remember that anyone who might actually have to pay the top rate probably had several high-priced tax advisers telling him how to avoid doing so. It's far from clear that that was a wise investment of time and energy.
2
There's a lot of discussion here about which states and taxpayers pay a little more, and which pay a little less. What this loses sight of is the big winners in this tax bill were the billionaire class that McConnell and the Republicans were most interested in pleasing, so their big-dollar campaign contributions would continue to flow. All the rest is fighting over crumbs.
One possibly unintended consequence of this law is all the last-minute tax maneuvering for 2017 that may already affect tax collections and the deficit by April. I'm one of those who prepaid my 2018 property tax. I also made some last-minute charitable contributions (more than usual), because 2017 may be the last time I'll be able to deduct them. News reports indicate many others did the same. This is going to reduce tax collected for the 2017 season compared with what may have been expected in a normal year. The deductions I've pulled back in to 2017 will reduce my taxes for this year, but this is only going to work once. After this, I expect my taxes will go up due to the SALT cap.
The creative searching for avoidance schemes as described here (what we see in this first week after passage is only the start) is likely to impact future tax collections, making the deficit in future years even worse than projected. De-funding the IRS is only going to add to the problem.
10
"They are looking at ways of raising revenue ..."
What I'd like to see is:
They are looking at ways to reduce expenses.
And please, do not tell me there aren't many areas where expenses can be reduced without affecting services.
9
There aren't many areas where expenses can be reduced without affecting services.
6
Why not just levy a 100% tax on the amount of increases over 2016 the refund provided by this legislation on anyone making $500,000 a year or 2x that for families?
3
It's been a long while since I've heard a proposal remotely close to this one -- 1972, to be exact. George McGovern was running for President, and he proposed a 100% tax on estates over $500,000 (a great deal of money in those days). That idea went over like a lead balloon -- especially with Americans who had very little chance of dying with $500,000+ estates, and McGovern soon dropped it.
I think your proposal would meet the same fate -- i.e. it would go nowhere.
3
The goal, perhaps, would be to levy the ultra-rich and large corporations, at the state level, the difference they would stand to "gain" by these huge tax cuts.
Their first move should be lowering property taxes and getting rid of their state income taxes to help the working taxpayers. Most of the states in question have a spending problem, are losing house and senate seats due to population decrease. Businesses and residents who work and pay taxes leave for more affordable states. The politicians in these states ARE THE PROBLEM. Complaining about tax cuts and challenging them in court where they cannot win against legislation that gives money back to the people is not a solution. The politicians and people who vote for those who support unreasonably high state taxes are the problem. Math is not political - cut spending , get rid of political positions, overbloated govt offices and state spending. Let the hard working people and their businesses keep their own money.
7
Wall Street won't be moving to Oklahoma anytime soon. Silicon Valley, Amazon, Microsoft, etc won't be moving to Arkansas. Lots of companies will be staying where there are plenty of well educated workers, where people want to live, where there are ports or airport or other infrastructure they need, etc. Only Republicans think all decisions are made on the basis of low taxes.
12
California is a donor state, meaning the people of California pay more into Federal tax revenue than the people of the state receive in Federal payments of all types. Estimates range from 78 to 99 cents received for every dollar paid to the Federal government. So how is it fair that the people of are state are limited in the amount of state and property taxes that can be deducted under the new tax bill. Why are we being punished for living in a beautiful state? Perhaps we should look at the states that take the most, yes I'm talking about you Louisiana, Montana, and Kentucky. Oh yeah, Mitch McConnell and friends, I guess that explains it the corporations, and Republican donors have to be paid.
25
One more thing, which goes to the idea that the state legislatures will have to deal with this tax plan whether they want to do so or not. Most state income taxes are linked to the federal income tax structure. My own California return simply takes adjusted gross income from the federal form and inserts that number into the state form. It does the same with deductions.
Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on your point of view), this tax bill really affects those numbers. State revenue is going to be impacted. And, unlike the federal government, states cannot make up for the shortfall with borrowing. Perhaps the cap on SALT deductions may balance out the increase in the standard deduction, which isn't very great anyway when you consider the exemption was eliminated. And, the big cuts are not concentrated at the individual level either. But, the revenue projections are going to be a headache to do properly. It isn't like you can take last year as a baseline, is it?
5
There is a solution to the deductability of the 2018 property tax paid in 2017. The states can change how they account for taxes, (or when they are due) stating that the taxes of a three year period are due prior to the end of the three year period with a reconciliation before the end of the period to account for overpayments or underpayments.
3
A revenue neutral payroll tax paid by employers equivalent to the former state and local income taxes, is the most straightforward.
An employer would offset the state payroll tax with an equivalent drop in salaries to equalize net payroll to that before with former state and local tax deductions.
Corporations (Corporate Persons) already can deduct state and local taxes and a host of other expenses.
The more the federal government is seen to capriciously target certain states and individuals for higher taxation relative to Corporate Persons, investors, and other classes of citizens, the closer the law can be challenged in the court as an illegal expropriation or taking.
Forced charitable payments won't work.
The states should consider each response and potential counter-counter-responce by the federal government with an eye to the courts.
There are Constitutional limits on the power to tax, including:
1. Due process of law;
2. Equal protection of the law;
3. Rule of uniformity and equity in taxation.
7
Interesting stratagems. I am reminded of the local Catholic school that, rather than charge parishioners its high tuition, arranged for them to make weekly "donations" to the parish and thereby obtain tax benefits. I generally oppose such techniques on principle.
The Republican Party with its enormous tax bill has chosen to make taxes more complicated, and considerably more favorable to the rich (especially when temporary tax cuts for the middle class are automatically revoked in a few years), The Republicans have by their reckoning, which I suspect will as usual estimate the damage low, increased the deficit by $1.5 Trillion, which they actually like. They will be able to cry louder that there is no money for the poor or for the ill and injured, as they have already done for the Children's Health Insurance Program. I oppose all this. The only way to improve in any of these areas is to elect Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.
20
In human behavior, people generally have a reference point when evaluating change, and usually that is the status quo. And, people react much more strongly to having something taken away than they do when they are given something.
The status quo was that SALT was deductible, and people made very long term financial decisions based on that. It is only reasonable that they be upset over this, even more so since there was no real reason given for limiting the SALT deduction.
Also, "high-tax states" is something of a misnomer. It really should be "high-income states." The level of taxation is essentially a function of income, and most states only vary by a percentage point or two in collections as a whole. The "high-tax" problem also affects "high-income" people in low-tax states.
Lastly, in reading these comments, it is remarkable how affluent I seem to be. Living in San Francisco I just tend to think that any married couple/two-income household automatically has a six figure income. I did not realize that others were so poor as a matter of course.
9
They did give a reason for limiting them. The reason was they could only increase the debt so much so they had to find ways to pay for the massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Their answers was limit SALT, which they gleefully noted would also punish blue states since they are wealthier.
6
Governor Cuomo in 2014: "High property taxes have been the number one burden on New York's families and businesses. Right after I took office we capped property taxes to stop skyrocketing hikes that were driving people from this state. Now we need to lower property taxes and we need your help to do it"
Apparently, Trump and the Republican tax bill are helping our governor by capping the SALT deduction which has brought our crushing tax burden back to the front burner has he runs for re-election this year.
10
As a single homeowner I pay the total local tax, whereas a married couple with two incomes only pay half each. Yet they get a $24,000 deduction and the single homeowner only gets a $12,000 deduction. Single home owners are being treated unfairly!
20
I am in the same position and totally agree.
4
This is a great point! I'm a single homeowner and will be impacted as well. I must ask why are there different tax tables for all the various "statuses"? Maybe it should just be $24K period for all and the same tax rates for all whether or you are single, married or HOH. Why should singles and HOHs be penalized on the deductions and the income levels.
2
In the WSJ David Harrison and Jennifer Levitz wrote "The drafters of the tax bill say unlimited deductions simply cost the federal government too much money and encouraged big spending by state and local governments." I wonder if the drafters have heard of "9/11" and considered the costs to local, state and federal agencies to provide security for New York as an example. Tragic. Have they considered the costs to schools having to provide a safe place,"in loco parentis" for students. Sad!
5
The Republican party has started a civil war on the citizens of blue states, as they declared an economic civil war on millions of American citizens. It is similar to Trump who governs for only 32% of the American people.
19
Mr Sweeney, the leader of the National Socialist Democrat Party in NJ has had the tables turned on NJ citizens for years. The Democrat Party are Carpetbaggers who believe the property that citizens work for belongs to them to do with as they please. They redistribute our incomes to the Patronage Employees who receive salaries, benefits and pensions that few other than CEO's can attain. They put people who are fully capable of working on the public dole and provide subsidies that raise the prices of EVERYTHING from food to rents beyond the reach of the WORKING poor and middle class. Now Sweeney and the Democrat Mob will raise taxes in NJ and blame it on Trump instead of doing their jobs and cutting the government payrolls and social programs that are rife with fraud. If the Democrats take back Congress the bankrupting of the U.S.A will continue with a vengeance just like it did under Obama. Unfortunately the bankrupting NJ is still in full swing with the Regressive Goldman Sachs Executive Phil Murphy at the helm.
11
Take them to court. Get a stay of this illegitimate legislation while the court case is pending. Before you know it November will roll around and we get to elect some new, fair, normal legislators to work FOR us.
It appears that certain shortcuts were taken and that lawful procedure was ignored in order to rush the bill through to please the President who wanted to showboat and get this done by Christmas. That sounds like illegality to me.
As such, a law suit should be instituted in a federal district court to challenge the legality of this bill. In the meantime, while that case is pending, the court can issue a stay which would bar the implementation of this nasty bill while leaving the current tax laws in effect until the matter is finally adjudicated, which could take a while.
That will fix them. At least for now.
10
The concept of transforming part of your state and local tax bill into a charitable contribution is laughable. What would happen in you paid the tax portion of your property bill, but failed to make the "charitable contribution"? Would your property go into a tax foreclosure sale for failure to contribute to a charity? The Federal Courts would see through such a ruse in short order. Many creative schemes to evade estate taxes, for example, have been rejected by the tax courts, and there is no reason to believe they would not do so again.
I think a more practical approach could be to form a corporation, and transfer your home to the corporation. Businesses can continue to deduct all interest and taxes paid. Make the corporation the property tax payer. Then rent your house from the corporation.
10
You're missing how this would work. You don't "have" to make a charitable contribution to your state, but if you do it would be deductable from your state taxes. You can give nothing if you choose (but you'll loose the deduction) or more than you owe (and it will be charity). Simple enough.
Jeff, if what you say were the basis of these State proposals, then someone who presently has a $25K property tax bill would see it reduced to $10K, and would not have to make up the difference. With no consequences whatsoever.
I don't think that is what they are thinking of. Somehow, they want the "charitable contribution" to be mandatory. Otherwise, its just a big state and local tax cut, and few, if any, would make the full "charitable contribution". if failure to make it held no consequences.
And Jeff, if a State gave a 100% property tax credit for each dollar of "charitable contribution", then a tax court would likely rule that the entire process transformed the "charitable contribution" into a tax, and would invalidate the deduction from federal taxes for the "charitable contribution".
And the IRS would also do so in its regulations, which govern what is and isn't deductible. First, these "charities" would have to register with the IRS and be approved for the "contributions" to be income tax deductible. The IRS would never approve such applications. These "charities" would do no charitable work, other than attempting to be a vehicle to evade federal income taxes.
Under the law Is a charitable contribution mandatory or optional?
1
Schemes are cool and good, but, as stated at the end of the article, the only real solution is to take the Republicans out of Congress. The political body of our nation has been ferociously infected. Trump IS the furuncle. Republicans ARE the disease.
15
if state taxes are charitable contributions, I don't give and no state can make me.. I'm not going to pay state contributions.. Democrats should just lower SALT taxes if they want to help the middle class.
14
Lowering SALT means fewer and worse services. How exactly does that help the middle class?
11
It is truly astounding that many commentators have not drawn the connection between higher service states that invest in education, infrastructure, protecting the environment, etc. and prosperity.
The prosperity that is generated in above median income states like California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Utah, Colorado, New York, Illinois, etc. is redistributed to states with less prosperity who have not made the same investment.
Double taxation is an unjust expropriation by a tyrannical government that has no basis in tax equity and will not stand.
States must think like corporations on behalf of their citizens to regain equity.
Make no mistake, this is a targeted attempt to disrupt the economies of states that voted for Democrats, and this opens a can of worms that will force states to think strategically and aggressively to protect their way of life.
The argument of many appears to be why don't states that tax more do what we do, cut state taxes and live on the teat of the federal government.
That is a bleak recipe for shared poverty.
32
Of course, I couldn't have said it better!
3
I think it is time for a number of states to just secede. CA, OR and WA could become a new country. Maybe Canada would allow some states to join it. I'll have to move. i'm surrounded by a sea of red.
No! We do not want to turn our state into a Kansas or a Mississippi. The results is slow economic growth and poverty for its citizens. This is not about lowering taxes but enriching the wealthy class.
25
As a HENRY, (High Income Not Rich Yet) I am thrilled that we will no longer be affected by the AMT tax according to Maxim Lott's tax calculator. We can't deduct any of our SALT taxes now due to the AMT tax.
We plan on saving every penny we save on not paying theses outrageous, unfair AMT taxes on our retirement which is coming up in the next 7 years. We don't have a minute to waste and need to save as much as possible to catch up saving so we don't end up destitute in our old age. There is no way that we can live on social security alone. The state I live in needs to stop handing out $200,000 pensions to certain public workers based on their final year's overtime pay. These blue states have enormous pension obligations to their public workers. All of this information on their overly generous pensions can be found easily online. Most people would be thrilled to get a $30,000 defined pension. Why are certain public workers getting $200,000 pensions plus generous medical insurance benefits? We the taxpayers are on the hook for these benefits.
30
Many people have a too limited view of taxes. They see it as some of direct transfer payment imposed by government with those who have more income or high cost homes and other real estate paying more money than those with fewer assets.
But our governments, particularly in the Northeast and West Coast have imposed an implicit tax by mandating laws that restrict zoning density which makes land artificially scarce and resulting in the high cost of housing. This transfers wealth less wealthy people to wealthier land owners such as President Trump. The zoning density restrictions or rent-seeking is a market inefficiency or market failure.
Japan has fixed this problem by mandating federal laws that override the local laws that create artificial scarcity in housing. The result: in 2014 Tokyo built 140,000 housing units compared with 20,000 in NYC that same year. The tax deductions property taxes on residences serves to be an another implicit government subsidy making the cost of housing even higher.
It is because of the rent-seeking government zoning density restrictions that the cost of housing and the cost of living is so expensive. We need to pass a federal law like that in Japan so that we can have affordable housing for working class and others and no longer enriching wealthy landlords like President Trump.
6
NJ has the same basic structure for its income tax: property tax deductions are capped at $10K and there is no deduction for federal income taxes. Seems like the GOP tax bill could accurately be called the NJ plan. Nevertheless, the incoming governor (Phil Murphy) suggests when the feds do it, such 'double taxation' may be unconstitutional. Hard to make this stuff up. (Also hard to reconcile how those that suggest the current capping of SALT deductions are unfair and potentially illegal did not have a problem with the AMT doing the same thing over the past several decades.)
On the 'charitable
11
While I don't know the cost of the federal income tax deduction for state income tax and real estate taxes -- I do wonder why the Republicans chose to start this battle. They had so many other options to raise revenue, with a far smaller political impact.
10
Let’s make it fair. End all SALT deductions. The federal government should not be subsidizing any state and local tax. Problem solved.
14
How is that fair when blue states pay for their own services as well as red states'?
Blue state liberals should be delighted to pay their beloved high taxes. No?
16
Depends on what they get in return for it. They don’t want to pay higher taxes just to enrich the wealthy and corporations that will sit on the money. But infrastructure, services, health care, education, law enforcement -and the jobs coming with those, that would be okay with me.
4
The "high tax states" are net senders of revenue to Washington. That is, they get back more than they receive. The gap will now grow even larger.
Until receiving states show appreciation for such generosity, senders should vote "No" on state-specific aid, starting with the $81 hurricane relief for TX/FL. Democrats included.
10
Why aren't we hearing about the disadvantage the lower-tax states have had, in not being able to fully use the maximum deductibility of property tax and such?? Did those poor abused states rant about this being an evil plot? Did they they threaten to sue?
I have a great idea! How about the higher-tax states work toward moderating their tax levels? Do they not know about that side of the ledger, the one that has to do with expenses?! (Excuse me, I must run and hide, for surely the public-trough goon squad will be coming soon to cut out my tongue....)
P.S. For the record, I have always lived in one higher-tax state or another.
16
My pet peeve: Nearly every article written about this awful law mentions the doubling of the standard deduction. Rarely mentioned is the elimination of the personal exemption. For a single person, there is a tiny benefit, but an individual with 2 dependents is getting shafted.
12
I’ve ommented on this several times. Any family with two kids will see their taxable income rise by over three thousand dollars. A large family of four kids (six exemptions) will see their taxable income rise by $12,000. Not only that, their payroll withholding tax will rise to the level of single unmarried filer. Come February when this kicks in, a lot of families are going to be screaming bloody murder.
3
Not true. $2,000 credit per child is worth more than the exemptions and the changes to the brackets and rates are key.
4
The $2000 per child tax credit is only a $1000 increase over the existing tax code minus the $4000 lost personal exemption on those kids and both parents. Also the child credit , as I understand it, is only for low income, not middle class, filers. Andthechild must be under 17 yo. I would call your reasoning the Marco Rubio Defence.
1
Our county commissioners are all Republicans and they have not seen a tax increase they did not like for numerous election cycles.
On the other hand, our Republican governor is trying to rein in profligate state fees and taxes. Many people of both parties support him.
4
What a funny example of obvious tax evasion. Democrats are always chanting "tax the rich" until it actually happens. If you owe $30,000 in state taxes you probably have a taxable income of over $300,000. Please don't tell me that isn't rich. A better approach would be to get your financial house in order and end the Union-Democrat deals that trade sweet pensions and bloated government costs for votes. You are getting exactly the government you voted for year after year, and the rest of the nation is under no obligation to support your profligate ways.
26
you are ignoring property taxes. $15k in property tax is routine in CT, and income tax comes on top of that. loads of CT citizens with incomes below $100k pay $20k and more in combined property and income taxes.
15
"You are getting exactly the government you voted for year after year, and the rest of the nation is under no obligation to support your profligate ways".
If not exactly, yes, pretty close. And no, you are under no obligation to support our "profligate" ways, yet year after year the high tax states support the rest of the nation by receiving less in per-capita benefits for the per-capita taxes we pay. Compare California, New York, or New Jersey to, say, Texas for an example - an otherwise economically strong state that does just the opposite. Pray tell why is that? Could it be that high tax states create stronger economies with higher incomes - hence more income to subsidize the rest?
I'm ready to have the discussion anytime.
Happy New Year!
16
I guess the bots are having trouble generating human names.
Progressive tax rates are fine, but this is not that. The tax scheme assigns a tax bill dependent upon where you live, how you receive your money, etc.
People who work for a living are taxed at the highest rates, while Corporate Persons who are billionaires, or hedge fund managers receiving billions in "carried interest," are taxed at lower rates, as are business owners whether or not they employ a single person.
If you form an LLC and derive hundreds of millions from it (like Trump), you are taxed at lower rates than if you have an upper income job. To add insult to injury, your wage income is double taxed by state and federal.
But if you inherit $ billions, this tax plan phases out any taxes at all (like Trump's family).
Capricious, arbitrary, and an abuse of power that our Nation's Founders would have called tyrannical.
11
Headline should be something like, "Democrats in High-Tax States look to tax loopholes to soften the impact of new tax law. "
But, NYT and all.
22
The people who arguably are hurt by losing this benefit have benefitted from the old regimen for decades. That was unfair to those states that arguably benefit from the new rule. Get your own economic houses in order and your people will pay less tax, without getting subsidized by the low-tax states as you have for years.
15
The big lie- low tax states are subsidizing the high tax states.
Even before this tax bill, my state, New York, sent billions more to the fed government than we get back. So with the loss of SALT the feds will get even more NY money and not give us any extra back. In fact, we are subsidizing the low tax states to a large degree who want to provide only the services that the feds offer, which from what I gather are pretty bare bones and will likely get worse with "entitlement reform"
I would like to see a bill/law in congress that stipulates that after all common federal charges are paid, ie defense, FEMA other fed agencies, the balance of funds be sent back to states proportionally to how they contribute. Then New York will at least get it's fair share.
The reason high tax states have high taxes is because people actually want to live there.
20
I welcome open war between the States and Federal government. It's gone unchecked for too long anyway. If the citizens won't rise on their own, we'd better hope State-level public servants do.
5
These states take care of all of their residents. It's about morality. Not a tax dodge.
16
And here in California, we take care of millions of residents from foreign nations who are in this nation illegally. Like you said, it’s about morality...
3
We live in a society called the United States of America.
so•ci•e•ty - the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community
The infrastructure, roads, basic education, state universities and social services from which we all benefit were built, paid for and maintained by taxes, fees and charitable contributions of our parents and predecessors.
The minimum obligation of all members of this society is to maintain and improve upon these facilities and services to provide for the needs of current and future generations. The manner in which we meet this obligation as a society is through taxes. Fair, equitable, progressive taxes coupled with generous charitable contributions.
"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society," Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
16
But democrats seem to forget that taxes are MY money. I wasn't put on this earth to work like a dog so some Californian can have a high speed train that isn't vital, pay mediacl services for illegal aliens, or for NJ and NY to give government employees there pensions that can be as high as 200k a year. Its time we taxpayers, the ones who actually pay the bills, got to keep more of OUR money rather than have the government fritter it away.
2
If Blue States are unhappy with the new tax law doubling the standard deduction and allowing an additional $10,000 for State and Local taxes they've got an alternative. The new law allows a deduction of up to $750,000 for Mortgage interest. By my calculation someone in NY or CA who has a 6% mortgage who deducts $750,000 in interest is sitting on a property worth over $12,500,000 loan value not including their equity. Cut your generous mortgage deduction which benefits millionaires/billionaires on their estates. No doubt Bernie, Elizabeth, Nancy, Chuck et.al. will not be happy but they are after all the despicable 1% Dems and Blue States have railed against.
8
sorry, you misunderstand the law rather badly. the deduction is not up to $750,000, it is for the interest on mortgage debt of $750.000. so if your interest rate is 10%, the deduction is is capped at $75,000. if your interest rate is 5%, the deduction is capped at $37,500.
6
I believe the deduction is limited to interest on a loan whose principal is $750K or less.
2
I believe the $750K refers to the size of the mortgage, not the interest.
1
Why do blue-state Republicans vote for schemes for geographic redistribution against their own constituents. Any why do those constituents tolerate this.
10
sigh ...
because ... freedom
Only Republicans want to suppress, intimidate, and prevent voting so they can "rule" by a minority of the minority?
7
The amount of disparate, conflicting and contradictory opinions on this tax plan says one thing to me......
......Nobody really has any idea how this is all going to work out.
10
Amazing. They consider everything but the obvious: Lower your taxes.
23
Are people moving to Florida for the schools and other community services?
Our state income taxes and real estate taxes in my suburban Boston community pay for fabulous services - schools, police, infrastructure, parks, services for seniors, and library. I am happy to pay those taxes.
15
Perhaps, states like ours, New York and Massachusetts, should have different tax rates for people who use the services and aren’t poor. I don’t have any children in school nor have I ever but I pay higher taxes for my well-off neighbor to have three kids in a public school.
Perhaps my neighbor should pay more for school tax to send their three kids there and forgo driving around in a $70,000 BMW while their kids are in school.
The problem with our tax code, the old and the new, is that the government is always trying to pick a winner and a loser. I’d be much happier with the tax code if it had very low rates, perhaps two or three brackets, and zero deductions. You should tax all revenue, not profit (this would get rid of businesses that always seem to run at a “loss” but the owner somehow drives a 150k car) and make everyone equal. Politicians would hate it because they couldn’t influence personal decisions through taxes and pay back big donors but it would be the only way to create a truly equitable and fair situation. One day perhaps...
1
There are lots of people moving from MA to NH for lower property costs and lower taxes if they work in NH. I'm sure you're aware of the biggest complaint of millennials in your state in that the problem is the cost of housing. You may be able to afford a home in Newton, but most can't. Would you feel as comfortable in Lawrence, New Bedford, Fall River, Lowell, Springfield? Your state income taxes send some money to those cities in the form of state aid but I would hardly call services in those cities "fabulous".
1
Republicans have waged war. And we will engage them. Democrats will slaughter Republicans in the fall, and the red states had better watch out. No more subsidies for agriculture, no more electoral college to give red states more than one vote per voter, no more over-generous payouts of federal funding to rural, throw-away red states which already receive far more from the federal budget than they contribute. Selfish, ignorant Republicans have shot themselves in their feet.
24
It will take more than a Democratic landslide, for which I am hoping devoutly, to do away with the electoral college.
7
Why should the Federal tax code subsidize high earners? Democrats complain the tax laws only benefit the rich, then Democrats complain that the tax laws are penalizing them.
There's an obvious disconnect there between the two messages. Ten thousand dollars of taxes is way, way more than the "middle class" pays in local taxes.
18
Not it isn't. In Connecticut property taxes are ferocious. In Newtown Connnecticut, property taxes have crept up well over 10K a year on a very ordinary house in a typical neighborhood.
I'm not in Newtown but our property taxes on houses and cars adds up to nearly 7,000 on a house recently valued at $200,000. I know people who have had to raid their retirement savings to pay property taxes, incurring a federal penalty for removing funds from an IRA before they reach the age of 59 1/2. They can't sell because the owe more tha. The house is worth now because home prices haven't come even close to recovering from the real estate crash of 2008.
Blue state property taxes fund local schools. We owe them even when we're unemployed, retired or in desperate straits. People in wealthy towns with low mil rates pay a far, far lower percentage of their income in property taxes than middle class people do. It's a disgusting system. Schools should be funded centrally, with a fair and equal amount for every student in the state who is not special needs. They should be funded with income taxes, not an arbitrary tax on our homes and vehicles.
People in wealthy Greenwich pay a far, far lower percentage of their income in property taxes than those of us in ordinary towns. It's not right and it certainly isn't fair.
5
If school funding were totally centrally controlled in Connecticut by the state Gov't, it would be a disaster. Have you been paying attention? The state is cutting funding to wealthy towns for education. Thus local property taxes are going up even more. Cities like Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport which the state pays the bulk of their education funding are getting even more state dollars.
1
I have been paying attention, yes. Our state is a disaster with people who are able to fleeing the mismanagement and waste. In light of this, I stand by my suggestion that education should be funded by income tax, not property tax. It's the only way to achieve some level of equality in education and remove the onerous burden of constantly rising property taxes from middle income people. I agree that our state doesn't know how to manage itself but must stand by my suggestion that the only fair way to fund education is by spending the same amount, per pupil, whether that pupil lives in New Canaan or Hartford.
Our system of property taxes is a disaster for anyone on fixed income, disabled, unemployed or sick. (There is some small relief for the disabled and the elderly but the income threshold is sooooo low that few can take advantage of it. It's basically useless for ordinary people.) Most of the state still has not recovered home equity lost in 2008 because nobody wants to buy when property taxes are so high. Why would you commit yourself to indenture to the town coffers just so you could "own" your home?
Here’s an idea: stop forcing high tax states to subsidize the low taxes of (primarily) red states. Let high tax (primarily blue) states benefit from the taxes collected from their citizens. Those tax dollars could go toward infrastructure, vocational training, and lower college tuition, all within those ‘high tax” states. The only reason lower tax states are able to exist is because they’re subsidized with higher tax states’ money.
28
Agreed. This is the very thing I’ve been wondering about. What avenues do higher-tax states — states that actually provide services for their residents — have to reduce subsidies to lower-tax states that provide relatively few services?
14
O.K., but you need them more than you think? It's a little harder to build a transit system or attract industry in a state with 2.93 million compared to a state like NY with 19.15 million or CA with 35.11 million.
That doesn't explain why blue states need red states. Please explain why we should all keep paying ethanol subsidies, farm supports, etc to support corn production in IA, especially since it has had a devastating impact on food prices in many poor nations. Blue states are tired of being hated and criticized by red states, told to lower their taxes, etc, and at the same time being the ones that pay more in taxes and get less back in benefits.
5
I guess no one in those states ever paid the AMT. otherwise they would know that state and local taxes were never deductible.
19
Look at the states that are hurt the least by this tax deduction limit. Now look at the amount of money they receive from the federal government compared to how much they pay in federal income tax.
The highest taxed states get less than a $1 from DC for every $1 they send to DC. The lowest states get the most.
16
But I thought income inequality was a bad thing. If you don't want to subsidize poorer states or the people in them, then work to change where you tax dollars go. Look up those agriculture subsidies, food stamps regs, section 8 rules, the military budget, healthcare, and see where your dollars are going. See if onerous regulations are making things more expensive, or if it is the burden of retirement payments that are flowing out of your state. I don't know the amount of tax money that the poorest states get, but we pay out more than we get too. Of course, if you're in the top 1% or even the top 10% I've been told it's your duty to pay more. Hmm.....
2
Since when is a state a charitable entity so that "contributions" can be made tax deductible?
4
Some tax deductions are for charities.
Some are not.
3
Reading these comments and the divide between left and right makes me despair for the future of the country.
19
Is it fair for a person in Texas making say $150K a year to pay more in federal income taxes than a New Yorker making the same salary? Because if SALT is 100% deductible that is what we are doing.
10
Is it fair for a hedge fund manager in Connecticut making $150 million a year to pay less in federal income taxes than a Californian making $150K as a percentage of their income ?
14
Is it fair for those in the red states to get more in federal money than they pay in income taxes while those in the blue states get less? Money flows from the blue to red states. Perhaps this contributes to them paying less in federal taxes.
15
Is it fair for the US to subsidize oil and gas?
10
The Baker plan would work, and be less vulnerable to Constitutional challenge.
But the blue states will need to work together. NY, NJ, and Connecticut should plan the same approach, and include California.
SECOND:. The blue states need to see this tax cut for the wealthy as a huge opportunity. The wealthy mostly live in the aforementioned states. When their federal tax is cut $11 million (the current estimate for Trump....Kushner will be even more)...THAT is an opportunity to raise their state taxes by a similar amount. Make it a little less and their total tax bill will go down even as the amount sent to their home state goes up.
The tax cuts then becomes a tax redistribution from the Federal government to the blue states. Then blue state residents' taxes can go more to their own state rather than sent to red States.
The red States will suffer short term, then realize it is better to be a blue state. With luck there will be no red States left in approximately 7 years.
4
The SALT deduction is a tax break for the wealthy! Democrats have been clamoring to raise taxes on the wealthy for so long and now that it's being done, they are trying to avoid it.
13
I would support a fair plan even if it means more taxes. But targeting middle income tax payers in big blue States to cut taxes for the wealthy isn't fair, and the American people understand this.
15
I think that people earning $50K to $80K really don't understand this. This affects people making $150K and up in general and the average person doesn't have that experience. If you are making that kind of coin, why not just 1) live well below your means, 2) focus on increasing income if you can't do much about expenses. Many learn #1 from Warren Buffett.
It's time for tax reform on the State level! Granted States need to balance their budget but Cuomo, Schumer and Gillibrand are not being proactive and working for NY State Residents. Their only response is to blame Republicans. NY voters should realize what Cuomo, Schumer & Gillibrand are being obstructionist, not productive
14
So it's the job of Republicans from Kansas and Mississippi to teach tax policy to New Yorkers and Californians?
7
High tax states are typically Democratic states. They should be trying to fix it.
7
Fix what? We have prosperity, world class educational institutions, world class cultural institutions, amazing job opportunities etc. You think we'd be better off if we were more like Kansas and Mississippi?
16
Bannon has recommended a 44% tax rate for the very rich. That is 7% higher than the proposed rate and higher than the current rate of 39.6%
Am I going to see any praise for Bannon?
Will pigs fly?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-26/bannon-is-said-to-cal...
4
Truth of the matter is that Republicans admittedly created and finalized this tax bill specifically for their donors---and not at all for constituents in their states.
Meanwhile, the disadvantaged will find their taxes have risen under the bill, and millions more will not have their health insurance. Republicans, including the moderates, worried only about their donors who demanded the bill, which was written by 1000 lobbyists. A total give-away to the rich and to the Trumps.
It's total foolishness that may destroy the economy. Every single modern Republican presidency results in a recession. I'm down south for the winter. People are still fully uninformed, sitting around talking about Pizzagate, Podesta emails and maligning Hillary. This country may be doomed beyond repair.
24
We got into this mess because special interests of all types have always sought out reasons they should be eligible for something that reduces their taxes. This has gone on forever.
Every single time you go to get rid of whatever benefit there is to be had you have someone from within that benefit group moaning and groaning about the possibility of losing their deduction and how unfair it is.
Obviously it is exceptionally difficult to change as someone will always cry about "their" deduction.
I think we need a plan to slowly phase out all deductions over maybe a 20-year period for example and slowly phase in a flat rate tax system. For example, create a threshold of $xxxx dollars where people below that threshold pay no tax whaysoever.
Once you reach the given threshold everyone pays the exact same percentage of gross earnings. Or, maybe every wage earner irregardless of gross earnings pays the exact same percentage. I would view either system as more than fair.
I'm a middle class earner. I see no reason for the wealthy to pay a higher percentage rate than myself just because they make more. Everyone, with the possible exception of below threshold people, has an obligation to pay the exact same rate in percentage terms. That would be fair to all involved.
The answer? Abolish the current system.
7
How is a flat tax ‘fair’ in any but the most abstract, academic way? Some common sense is needed here.
Do you truly believe a schoolteacher earning $60k per year should pay the same *rate* as a hedge fund manager making $60m per year? If both are taxed at an average rate of 30%, the teacher is left with $36k after taxes while the hedge fund manager is left with $36m after taxes. Do you think that is a fairer result than taxing the hedge funder’s marginal income at a higher rate above, say, $100k or $1m? Is the goal to create a feudal state?
7
I'm a 1 percenter. Middle income people (I used to be one) often have no idea how higher income people have a persistent advantage. We probably should take on the greater proportional burden. It amazes me how working class people buy into that "pay your fairshare" game and want to protect us. Keep believing in trickle down foolishness as well...it will work for me.
3
In other words, the fairest of all tax systems.
3
How about a law that says anyone who makes more money than me, pays at least the same tax rate as me?
11
That is no good. The unit of measure is dollars not rate. Tax and spend liberals had the nerve to say Mitt Romney who paid $3 million in ONE year alone did not pay enough.
3
He didn't pay enough. If we have consider the tax system should be mildly progressive (which is as it is written) he underpaid. He did nothing illegal but he did pay considerably less compared to people in lower tax brackets.
https://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-romney-pay-a-lower-rate-in-taxes-...
If you can't deduct your dog from your taxes he should not be able to deduct his horses. Which he did. Legal or not it smacks of privilege and inequality in the system.
http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-rafalca-horse-tax-deduction-2012-9
2
He didn’t pay too much. $3m is a big number but you conveniently exclude his income that year - $21.7m. Seems like a pretty good deal to me. But no, a business executive’s 14% rate is too high for Republicans if some poor or middle-income person pays less in real dollar terms. Appalling.
2
Far too large of a portion of local taxes are used to basically overpay the public employees in retirement benefits and medical benefits. Put these employees on a retirement schedule the same as Social Security recipients and the tax burden can be greatly lowered. Or you will end up with a State mostly populated by public employees.
17
When my spouse and I purchased our home on Long Island 25 years ago, home prices and property taxes were manageable. We could get by on one salary while I stayed home to raise our children. Now, Long Island is a place, along with the other metro NYC suburbs, where two salaries is a minimum requirement to survive here. The property tax burden has become so onerous that in 2012, a 2% cap became law.
I am no fan of Trump or the Republican tax bill, but it has shined a bright light on the crushing tax burden based by those of us in NY, NJ and CT. Even with the full SALT deduction, most of the next generation of adults I know are looking at moving to states where you can still afford a home on a middle class income. Local and state government needs to give tax and utility breaks to companies to get them to stay on Long Island. Maybe they need to do the same for their residents.
28
I've heard that you get some pretty great public schools for your money. A friend raised his kids there and, once they were gone, moved to North Carolina. So he took a windfall in home appreciation to contribute to his nest egg. It appears to me that the thing to do if you want to live there is to find the cheapest house in the town to pay the least in property taxes and then reap the benefits of the great public schools.
Quarrels between states over inequality have been going on since our founding when there were only 13. If 13 couldn't agree why is it a surprise that 50 can't.
That said, if there are blue states that want to tax their residents through the nose that's between the people they elected and them, apparently blue state residents like heavy taxes. But when they send demand payment invoices to the rest of us for payment their fiscal folly becomes ours. You like $30,000 real estate taxes on average homes, not our problem. And if you wish to become Sanctuary States, raise you taxes higher to pay for services for all those new illegals that you'll welcome with open arms. And don't send us the bill since you argue that illegal immigrants are an economic boon to your economies. Use the money from unskilled labor to pay $30,000 per year per school seat per pupil they'll generate. And don't forget you've got NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING for all your new welcomed guests. DON'T SEND US THE BILL. We love legal immigrants but don't ask us to pay for your ill conceived social experiments.
Got a problem with that? Take it up with Gov. Cuomo and Moonbeam and your elected officials. Good luck and HAPPY NEW YEAR.
23
"Got a problem with that? Take it up with Gov. Cuomo and Moonbeam and your elected officials."
Nope, I'll take it up with the Republicans who decided to raise my taxes to give a huge tax windfall to their plutocrat ownership. Can't wait until November.
11
Hey Virginia!
You got the roles reversed buddy. It's a well known fact that we blue staters export a ton of money to red states.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/11/please-cut-the-crap-about-...
9
I'd be fine with your solution if it were really that simple. However, more federal tax dollars are given to the Red States than are returned back to the blue higher cost of living states who pay the higher taxes. It's not the so-called tax & spend liberals, it's the harder hit states with low tax bases & far more needy population.
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/blue-state-voters-in-gener...
How about this?
..... every state has 50% (or a practical number, but identical for all) returned directly to the state government coffers that has been sent to the IRS to be applied directly to that state's benefit: healthcare, infrastructure, SNAP, education, etc... The rest is for federal obligations.
In 5 years, let's see which states have prospered while others have scraped by. I have a hunch already, but considering how much resentment, even hatred, those living in Blue states have received increasingly over the years, I'm in the mood to be selfish for once.
4
It is generally assumed that salaries will not be affected by the tax cut, so that only tax rates and deductions are important.
However, “…perhaps more significant, cutting taxes would also mean cutting funding for schools, subway systems, anti-poverty programs and other services that residents in those states have come to expect.”
The reduction in spending will affect jobs and therefore the demand for goods and services, which will further reduce tax collections. With less jobs available salaries will drop. I would call it “the Kansas vicious circle”, which is the exact opposite of “trickle-down theory”.
I suggest becoming more familiar with “the balanced budget multiplier”, Macroeconomics 101.
5
How about giving less money to the Federal Government which they in turn use to supplement income in red states. Why do we have to do this in the first place? I do not care to have my hard to come by income go anywhere but into the general fund equally with other states. We should never have been paying more than our fair share in the first place.
11
From reading the comments here it is apparent that the Republicans accomplished their goal, dividing the country. As a retired NYC school teacher who will be struggling under this new plan I now hate the red states and their right-wing benefit -grabber residents.
28
If you live in Long Beach it's your choice to live in one of the most expensive markets in the country. Oh and why don't you share with your fellow NY taxpayers what your school teacher pension and benefits are that make you "struggling?"
25
As I read through the 1600+ comments posted so far, I think to myself that these are the discussions and conversations (arguments) that should have been allowed to take place in Congress. As in, full hearings held before the bill became law. It's absolutely disgusting that the Republicans refused to allow this.
30
Kind of like Obamacare, when it got rammed through?
11
Please go look it up. The discussions about the ACA went n fr almost a year. There were multiple hearing, etc. It had 60 votes in the Senate. There was none of this writing it behind closed doors or voting without CBO scores, etc. It did not get bipartisan support in the end but the process was not the same at all.
1
Go back and read the newspapers when the ACA was going down. There's "rammed through" and then there's "RAMMED THROUGH." I'm not a big fan of the ACA, but it was a stunning democratic achievement compared to the Republican tax bill.
Cut blue state taxes, blue state employee pensions, blue state employee benefits, state university payouts, state legislature salaries and benefits, reduce student tuitions , competitive bidding for state services and blue states will be affordable.
13
Do you understand that cutting pensions is not something as simple as snapping your fingers and saying "make it so?" Government employees pay in to their pension fund out of their salary. It's their money that goes in to it.
I recently chatted with a ranger in a national park who was earning 36K a year, with a degree. She said that her take home pay was roughly $1,500 a month after deductions for SS, state and federal taxes and her required contributions to pension and health insurance were taken out.
Pensions are a contract that a worker makes when they agree to work for the government. The employee funds part of the pension out of salary. They're not giveaways. The only answer is to stop contracting with future employees for such generous packages.
In addition, pension funds have really suffered from the near zero interest rate we've been operating under since 2009. Investments in bonds used to pay enough to fund pension obligations but states have been pushed to invest in much riskier options to meet their pension obligations. This is a disaster waiting to happen.
9
So it's OK to target Democrats? Better watch out because the next Congress is going to be blue. What goes around comes around.
3
Let's start by cutting off all farm welfare which is a huge drain on the federal budget. these mega-million agricultural subsidies go to a bunch of midwest farmers who constantly are looking for a free hand out from tax dollars provided by the blue donor states.
13
As usual another Democratic strategic blunder once again mitigating the political effects on the GOP. Let Koch Brothers owned Republican bandits live with the political consequences of their rob from the middle class policies. Let people feel the full joy of that Republucan Paradise. Let the GOP stew in its own own vile juices. When Democrats blunt Republican pillage, they let GOP criminals off the hook and get none of the credit; and the blame if things go wrong. Dumb. No helping Republican neo fascists till they are shown the door, ALL OF THEM, in 2018 and 2020.
7
When the cost of living is factored into the tax system, it will get fairer...for the "giver" states like California, New York and Massachusetts that contribute more to keep the "taker" states like Alabama, Ole Mississippi and Florida afloat...
And if those "Givers" seceded you'd see who would survive and thrive and who's be asking for handouts from the oligarchs!
10
A NYS enacted “GOP Tax Plan Windfall Recovery Act” needs to be passed. Corporations can be taxed to some extent to redirect some of the 14% tax cut they received to state coffers. But I can see the conundrum involved in figuring out at what level this would act as an incentive for Companies to relocate. But not so much the real estate operators like Trump and others for whom a special provision was written in. The full extent of their windfall and even more should be surcharged to their state and local property taxes. This will be necessary to offset the additional burden placed on the individual, most of whom losing the most happen to be middle class Republicans. So passing such a law should not be a partisan issue.
1
And I meant to add that they can’t just relocate the skyscrapers like Trump Tower to Alabama, much as I might wish hat he could.
Red red states are poor. Blue states support them. We pay more in federal taxes and red states receive more federal benefits than the blue.
17
I can break your point easily. Red states are red states because they want a decrease in taxes and give aways. If Red states are the recipients why would they vote to abolish those. It's clearly illogical. Best to drill down beyond the meme, Karen.
6
Saints Fan can keep the red state financing model. It's why 17% of Texans and 13% of Floridians are without health insurance while the number is 2% in my state. (2017 Governing magazine) It's why Massachusetts' test scores rank internationally in reading, math and science, right up there with those whippersnappers from Singapore. I'm glad both of us have a choice of how/where we want to live. Too bad the federal government wants to penalize us for our choice to invest in our health and education. Sad!
8
Hmmm....and just when seniors finally actually got a FEW DOLLARS a month in Social Security after four years of practically nothing. What Big Government giveth, Big Government taketh away......
4
From the Republican Party Platform 2016, "Our Tax Principles": "We oppose tax policies that deliberately divide Americans or promote class warfare." Chairman, Senator John Barrasso
Way to go Senator and colleagues, you've managed to violate your own so-called "tax principles" in one unseemly bill. Creating the blue vs. red state distinction while favoring your millionaire/billionaire donors over the rest of us.
13
There are common threads strangling the financial futures of these high-tax states:
Powerful public employee unions with resultant lavish benefits and pension obligations.
Over the top social programs that are not merely safety nets but life-style support.
Corruption, bloat and inefficiency on a broad scale.
These states have danced for decades, now the piper has to be paid.
12
Trump's admiration of Oligarchs, his Russian younger brother, suggests those that hold power must be rich, as his new tax code goes into effect. States have relied on Federal monies, as State's citizen have paid the Federal government too. The implication isn't who owes, but who owns in Trumpies world.
2
"That could make it harder for states to raise taxes, ... and could increase pressure to cut spending."
OMG, the bluest of blue states may now have to act in a responsible fiscal manner? Shocking...
12
It is the high-tax, blue states that provide the bulk of Federal revenue for those on-welfare red states. Just look at any chart as to which states pay more to the feds than the get back, and it is the blue states.
We should start by immediately ending RR tax emptions for any property that ever had a trump involved. Then audit every one of his properties, and up the taxable market value to whatever the highest worth he ever claimed it would be.
Do it for all of his circle. Fight fire with fire.
Oh. And provide NO police protection for anything involving any Federal activity without pre-payment, in advance, along with a tidy ptofit.
trump is going to his golf club in NJ? No NJ police presence without prior payment. Maybe even put all the roads on his route under 'detour'.
13
Clearly the new republican tax law is designed to do one thing; cut off funding for the federal government. I think most republican law makers wouldn’t care one bit about any new state laws designed to further this result. Within a very short time our country will be so far down a deficit hole that drastic measures will need to be taken. Measures the republicans can’t wait to take.
America will continue to be a corporate-capitalist Goliath crushing the markets of the world at the expense of its people.
8
It *is* short-termism, but the impact to this Administration's "enemy states" is TOO much for one tax bill. This is a lot of money, for middle class people to simply give up, because of a party vendetta. It's targeted and it's a lot. It IS in the Constitution, and it IS something that people counted on when they bought homes, and when they moved to these great states. We came to terms with their taxes, and the programs they provide and the communities that benefit. Our communities. This tax bill is an ugly assault on a better way of life, by those who offer no real solution, just a solution that looks a lot like: "Keep as much cash as you possibly can, and let the sick and hungry die. Then pray for their souls." Republicans have lost any sense of morality and all forms of righteousness EXCEPT self-righteousness.
12
So first things first. All working citizens and their employers send the Federal Government 7.65% off the top of their earnings to fund Social Security and Medicare. This is called the FICA tax. Then a portion of taxes are deducted for Federal Income Tax.
Then most States collect State Income Tax. After that most States and some cities charge you a sales tax on what you purchase like clothing, food, cigarettes, gas and even medication. Then if you are lucky enough to own a home or condo you get to pay real estate taxes.
What is left? What a Country
2
Why not try mirroring the budget allocations of states that operate successfully with lower taxes? The "high tax" states are operating under the assumption that they simply cannot run without high taxes. A bad assumption for the tax paying public.
6
You mean like Kansas, which was forced to undo their disasterous "tax reform?'
No doubt the Republican "Tax reform" will also be reversed in short order, due in large part to coming revenue losses from the advantages given to pass through income (which will result in high income individuals recharaterizing their income as pass through)
12
You mean like the new where 15% of people still don't have any health insurance? Where school test scores are below average? Where the poverty rate is double the national average? N thanks.
Considering there is now a $1 trillion dollar hole in the budget that came paired with higher effective federal taxes on blue state workers, let's start with some spending cuts to even things out. How about closing sprawling southern military bases and cutting all farm aid? I bet that would go over well in the heartland. Time to spread the pain to all.
23
How is it that there is no discussion of actually decreasing state taxes? Once taxes are imposed, they become addictive. No one will reduce taxes....witness the recent action in California where a 'temporary' tax was made permanent. No tax is ever temporary, btw. Now, there is a real danger of high earners (both only those who have mobility as an option); AND wealthy retirees beginning to plan on leaving the state. The tax base will begin to narrow.
12
This puts our state governments in the poor strategic position of being re-active to the federal law. As many of the new provisions phase out after a time, how will the states accommodate that? Further, as the current federal regime is highly unpredictable, the chess game the states now play has the potential to backfire in terrible ways. The first of these that comes to mind is a cutback to Medicare along with a rise in Costs to the Medicare consumer, and a cut in Social Security along with a rise in the retirement age (again!) . We need to tread very carefully. And remember there is no intersect in the Venn diagram of the current congress and compassion for the people of our nation.
2
blue states have subsidized the red states for quite a long time, haven't they?
14
Nope. Richer people have subsidized poorer people.
Simple demographics: most of the high family income states are blue; most of the low family income states are red.
We could force redistibution of people among the states to even things out...
5
The tax overhaul clealry tried to target blue states, which already pay mor ethan their share of income taxes per capita compared to red states. It was a purely political move...well, purely political on top of benefiting the Income Tax Hider In Chief.
7
What a disingenuous load of propaganda. Let's look at two underlying themes:
1. High local taxes offer better quality of life.
False. Take deep-blue Massachusetts. Tax burden is slightly higher than average but quality of state services is below average (motor vehicle registry locations few and far between and not even open on weekends, for example). Quality of schools a crapshoot. Local taxes pay for schools and the quality depends on the neighborhood and the local tax base, same as everywhere. Roads and public transportation are awful. Poorly maintained, poorly managed, and full of wasteful spending.
2. This tax plan is a giveaway to the rich.
Obviously false. The Dems are running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to lower taxes *only rich people* will pay under this plan.
Here's a hint for Dems: stop attacking straw men. No one wants to eliminate government and no one wants to undermine civilization. We want to reduce the inefficiency we see in government (at all levels) by allowing more of our nation's wealth to be privately controlled. Equating any and all state government spending as all-or-nothing civilization may fly in the echo chamber but not in real life. Denying the waste in many big cities and blue states that average people see with their eyes to score rhetorical points makes you look like naked emperors and their hangers-on.
Keep it up and more Trump and decades of Republican rule at all levels of government even in now-blue states.
22
The illusion that funds in private hands will be well spent is laughable. Unrestrained corporations have done far, far greater damage to this world than some trade unions or government workers.
8
In the case of New York, it's important to remember that a lot of its spending goes directly towards benefiting America as a whole. For example, New York monitors and supports the financial markets on Wall Street. And New York ensures national security by policing vital points of entry at waterways and airports. The New York City police department alone is larger than the armies of many nations.
12
You’re a sanctuary city.
Pay the money.
8
Spoken by a resident of Florida, a state that pays a smaller share of federal income taxes relative to federal aid/benefits than any other state in the country. There’s nothing wrong with tax avoidance but please...spare us the Fox News talking points about ‘sanctuary cities’.
7
Great job on "monitoring" the financial industry in 2007!
5
The Dems need to take control of Congress to rewrite that tax bill.
But, what still stares us in the face is the national debt and the extra trillion that the tax bill will cost the nation. If we expect a high level of service - defense, soc. security, medicare, infrastructure rebuilding - we have to pay for it. We can't keep raiding the social security tax to pay for wars, for example. We should have had a war tax during all this time in Iraq and Afghanistan and other parts of the world. I hate to promote more taxes to reduce our national debt, but let's face it folks, we have to pay or go bankrupt Maybe we need an infrastructure tax to pay for new roads and bridges and so on.
So, let's get on with it: an infrastructure tax, a health care tax, war tax - and itemize all of them. BTW, I'd exempt those families from the war tax if they have a a son, daughter serving in the military.
7
No one is "raiding" SS -yet.
Like many, you don't understand that not one penny has been taken from SS to be used as general revenue. By LAW, the entire SS Trust Fund must be invested US Treasury Securities.
To say this money has been "stolen" or replaced with "worthless IOUs" is saying US Treasury securities are worthless.
If US Treasury securities are ever deemed worthless, we'll have much bigger problems than SS.
4
"Yet" being the operative word. Or maybe you haven't been listening to Paul Ryan, with the grin worthy of Hannibal Lecter when it comes to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
9
Not true. Bush used money from the Social Security Trust Fund to help finance the Iraq war, thus making it look like he added less t the debt than he really did. To best of my knowledge it has not been repaid.
State governments can tax all they want or feel like they need to do. They just shouldn’t expect the Federal Government to return a third of that back to their citizens.
8
Blue state residents earn more than the rest of the country and pay a ton more for houing, and pay 5% tax to the state. The Fed can tax the 95% that remains, no problem. Please stop being so greedy and asking for more.
4
The tax bill passed in Congress was as corrupt as anything to come out of Washington DC in modern history.
It targeted voters and states with laser-like precision to punish those with temerity to vote for the better candidate.
It is the very definition of a tyrannical government, exercising power in a repressive and arbitrary way.
There is no justification for making unlimited wealth transfers tax free after a phase in period (benefiting Trump family), keeping intact a "carried interest" tax break for hedge fund managers who often make billions a year, while ordinary residents are double taxed on state and local taxes above $10k.
States must start thinking like corporations to minimize the net tax burden for their state residents, as they have the scale and the ability to do so.
Make no mistake, this tax law was meant to disrupt the economies of blue states, and it should be aggressively countered.
25
Those complaining that the federal taxes from Blue States subsidize poor red states should take a few minutes to research the demographics of poor Red States.
5
...as well as how minorities are and have been treated in the Red States.
7
The demographics of the poor red states is they never recovered from missing slaves to do their work and have no work ethic or skills.
12
Is it legal for NY/NYC (and others) to charge different percentages of sales tax depending on where you live? 8.75% for NYC residents, as today, 18.75% for visitors from e.g., Ohio, Alabama, Russia - anyone who cannot document a NYC or NYS address. (This goes for packages shipped to other states, too.) The additional proceeds then could be used to reduce state income taxes or feed hungry children or ...? Just throwing this idea out there.
6
And the people in Ohio could charge NYC more for food.
3
no more taxes.
2
no more death. So easy right?
5
People cite the advantages of higher tax states and report that TX is #49 in academic performance as a result of their low taxes.... perhaps part of it is because TX public schools are flooded with illegals, to whom english is not a native language. They cost the system 1billion a year.
Perhaps if the bleeding hearts amongst us would agree to stop illegal immigration, end anchor babies and chain migration (perhaps allowing dreamers who have behaved themselves the right to stay), TX school performance would improve, and maybe NY could lower their taxes tremendously. Then, I do no think I would have such a quarrel with the loss of my SALT deduction.
14
Can those in NYC honestly say they have great public schools? Los Angeles? Detroit? Don’t they wonder what their local taxes are doing?
8
NYC does not have great public schools because money is stolen from the students to pay for security for all the industries that bleed NYC like Wall Street.
Or maybe it's because Texas spends all the education money or football stadiums and rewriting science textbooks to include creationism. Texas has plenty of oil revenue and should be able to teach children English regardless of where they come from. Children learn languages extremely easily. New York has just as many immigrants and manages to not be consistently at the bottom of educational attainment.
6
This deduction limitation only affects the wealthy. The title should be, "Rich Democrats in High-Tax States Plot to Blunt Impact of New Tax Law."
12
@mslay: Hilton Head is full of wealthy people who like the lower taxes for full time residents but have whined mightily over being required to pay extra assessments for hurricane damage. They wanted the feds (i.e. taxpayers from other states) to pay it all and to get big tax deductions for damage. I know because I lived there until this past summer and listened to the whining at community meetings. So continue to enjoy your deteriorating roads, constant traffic accidents, snakes, alligators and mosquitos and don't ask people from other states to pay for your hurricane damage. You don't contribute to our snow removal!
4
Republicans dislike government, the only reason I can think of is government prevents Republicans from taking more advantage of everyone else.....
Not one Member actually understands the IRS Tax code, what it does, how it works and what its function is. They bash the IRS 24/7 and now, pass a law, so convoluted the IRS will crash and burn trying to implement it
I can hear the cries from Republicans now......
How anyone voted Republican is beyond my feeble understanding......I am sorry, voters are pathetic.....destroying the country without even realizing it
16
Obviously people don’t realize they couldn’t deduct these items under the AMT anyway.
3
Efforts spent on all such state-level tax counter initiatives only serve to take the impetus away from the real solution of returning control of the U.S. Congress to representatives who will restore full SALT tax deductible status for the original entirely defensible reasons.
Focus extra effort on turning over those congressional districts whose Republican lawmakers can be shown as having clearly gone against the majority of their constituents' financial interests.
Between now and this fall's midterms, keep up the efforts to make the effects clear to tax illiterate voters who won't otherwise wake up until April 15, 2019.
9
The problem is that even if voters can flip both houses of Congress, there still is the clown in the White House who will surely veto such a proposal unless the good guys can get 2/3 of both house to override a veto. Unfortunately not very likely.
3
It is possible to multitask.
2
The White House circus is been going for the past 8 years.
So, one clown act is replaced with another. There were plenty people disappointed with the previous clown and decided to change the act.
You gave the other clown entire 8 years to rein, but judging this one by the first line. Lets calm down and see what's next.
3
The power to tax is the power to destroy. The Founding Fathers (and Mothers) fought the Revolution under the banner of “Taxation without representation is tyranny.” The founders knew that their local governments were at risk if Parliament absorbed all the revenues available for public purposes. The loss of the ability to deduct state and local taxes inevitably will reduce resources available to state and local governments. This was overtly recognized by many on the right as they supported this change because it will “starve the beast,” in which category they include all governments from school districts through the federal level. One problem is the sheer hypocrisy of these same people crying “states’ rights” whenever a policy dispute occurs and then attacking the financial sustainability of the state and local governments they profess to love. The immediate problem is the financial destruction of the states and their political subdivisions, where most education, transportation, and public safety (fire and police) expenditures are made, to finance a transfer of wealth from lower- and middle-income people to corporations and their wealthy owners. The outcome will be reduced basic public services and greater income inequality. This is a prescription for political unrest of the most serious sort.
8
“The Democratic Party’s long-term agenda requires the federal government being able to raise revenue,”
That's actually the "long term agenda" of the US founders. No government works if it cannot raise revenue.
Consider that the GOP's agenda is to MAKE US GOVERNMENT DYSFUNCTIONAL as clearly stated by Newt Gingrich and Reagan and GOP is still operating under that anti-American ideology. Gingrich stated clearly that GOP cannot win elections if US government if functional and people believe in it.
So we have GOP attacking US government, making it dysfunctional with shutdowns and filibusters and voter suppression and "super majorities' which are NOT IN US CONSTITUTION.
When Democrats are in office (Clinton and Obama) the government works. When GOP is office (Reagan, Bushes and Trump) it doesn't work and doesn't work by GOP DESIGN.
So Democrats and all American's best move is to keep telling the truth about the GOP's tactics, about bad results of GOP policies (deficits, debt, government by and for the rich, racism as a party strategy, unfunded military that is threat to US and world peace, GOP health care system that cost twice as much as delivers half as much, anti-science, anti-working Americans, anti-public education.
Americans can vote for US or vote for Trump/GOP.
16
Except the founders are rolling in their graves at the idea that the Commerce Clause gives the federal government the right to do 90% of what it does, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
5
Alternate title:
"Democrats in High-Tax States Plot to Create Tax Loopholes for the Rich"
11
Plenty of fat and waste to cut in state and local budgets.
1) No more benefits (including school) for illegal aliens. Send them home.
2) Outsource prisons to Mexico. Instead of $30K - $50K per year per inmate maybe $5K.
3) No more subsidizing the "homeless." Those who want to help can contribute to charity. Charity is not a function of government.
4) No more bilingual education. Immersion is the best way to learn a language. Bi-lingual ed delays the adoption of English and handicaps the child.
5) No government employee should earn over $100K. My UC Berkeley friend a retired librarian makes over $100K in retirement. More than when she worked.
6) On the federal level no more subsidizing Europe and other "allies" whom we have been bankrolling for decades. Time for these dependents to pay for their own defense.
15
Sounds like this may be reasonable. But should charitable deductions be deductible? Should churches and other institutions operate tax free or should they pay something for police and fire protection. Should we have our wallets handy to pay for the ambulance and Medics when we have an accident or heart attack/ stroke? And maybe other countries should stop teaching their students English because, you know, total immersion is the best way to learn when you travel for business or pleasure. On the other hand, maybe we should all just stay home.
Does that include homeless veterans? Connecticut now houses all of their veterans. Guess what? That costs money, but maybe they can ship them off to Alabama or something. Out of sight, out of mind.
'Charitable contributions to government' ? seriously?
How about employer will give charitable contribution to the employee instead of the paycheck with attached payroll taxes?
6
Only in a "progressive" la la land is treating citizens of each state equally considered "unfair".
13
Only is "conservative" la la land can claiming Wyoming (with population 585,000) and California (with 100x the population of Wyoming) both having 2 Senators is "equal treatment"
6
On the other hand Wyoming has one house member compared to 53 In California. Take some history lessons.
2
This Red State whining is pathetic. A job that pays $100 in a small town might pay $120 in a high cost Blue state. And they deduct the 5 percent of state tax they pay from their income before paying Federal tax. So the Fed gets to tax $114 of income, which is more than taxing the $100 person. So why are Red Staters whining that Blue states are finally paying their due??? You really need the Blue staters to pay more?
4
"This Red State whining is pathetic."
We are not whining. Perhaps you should read the comments.
"A job that pays $100 in a small town might pay $120 in a high cost Blue state. And they deduct the 5 percent of state tax they pay from their income before paying Federal tax. So the Fed gets to tax $114 of income, which is more than taxing the $100 person."
Um... but the Blue state citizens enjoy the benefits of the higher cost state. Those states are likely higher cost because they offer better weather, access to beaches, etc., something to justify their higher cost. If they are unhappy with the trade-offs, they can move. Their choice.
"So why are Red Staters whining that Blue states are finally paying their due??? You really need the Blue staters to pay more? "
No, we need the deadbeats in high tax states to pay their fair share of Federal income taxes. What they tax and spend for themselves is their own business.
2
Red states can't whine while they are too busy parasitically attached to the federal cash flow. Those are the "deadbeats" that the blue states should be whining about. The "high tax states" already contribute much more to the federal treasury, and draw much less from it.
4
"If they are unhappy with the trade-offs, they can move."
You're a big guy telling people to move. Why should people move? The government is meant to serve people, not the other way around. If the only solution you have is for people to move, you don't have a solution.
3
Republicans have Gerrymandered the tax system in favor of the Red States.
9
With the new marijuana laws in California, between alcohol and marijuana.....you probably don't care how much in taxes you pay or how inefficient the system is.....that is if you can hold down a job.
6
Conservatives who hate taxes so much often massively underestimate the important programs government provides with those taxes. Republicans simple minded and quite disproven approach of heedlessly cutting taxes as a magic solution is more damaging than they like to admit.
Conservatives spout bumper stickers about how socialists and liberals are "addicted" to tax and spend, without ANY regard whatsoever for how useful and important both the taxes and spending are.
They have made government spending and taxation evils unto themselves, so they are then totally unable to recognize the truth that both things are important, necessary, and can be very good for society.
13
I guess you think government programs are well run.
9
Funny John, but as a dual national (French/American) who has lived with both health care systems, I can tell you that the American system compared to the French is pathetic. Not only that but the French system is paid for out of social security taxes, which are less in France (12.4%) than they are in the US (15.3%). So yes, government programs can be well run and effective. But not when groups like the Republicans spend millions in useless votes and all manner of political subterfuge to sabotage something like the ACA, instead of trying to improve it for the sake of their fellow citizen's health. And curiously enough, I was just talking to my niece in France who is having her first child. She gets 4 weeks paid leave before and 10 weeks paid leave after the birth to be with her child. And she was discussing the fact that that is far from the best in Europe. So then tell me about Republicans and their cherished
family values.
4
Well said! I am also a dual national (Italian/American) and can attest to the fact that in Europe - even in disorganized Italy - government run healthcare systems work very well. As a matter of fact, Italy's healthcare system is ranked among the top 5 in the world.
3
Let’s stop complaining about red state vs blue state and start adjusting federal income tax to cost of living for each tax payer by zip code or metropolitan area. Why should the 80th percentile in Stanford Conn be supporting the 80 percentile in Cotton Plant, Arkansas. SALT helps to mitigate the federal taxes paid by bracket creep in expansive high income metro areas. Let’s start comparing apples to apples. Not apples to peas. Red vs Blue is dividing our Nation. My sense of civic responsibility is shrinking with every passing month with this divisive government.
12
These governors' attitudes exemplify some of the very reasons Trump was elected. They just don't get it. My total tax bill will probably go up, but I'm glad the state income tax deduction will be reduced. It should disappear completely. There is no earthly reason for allowing it. All you poor blokes out there in the hinterland have been subsidizing me for years, and you shouldn't have to. The problem is the high tax rates in places like California, and these governors sound like little cry babies whose goodies have been taken away. "Unfair". Come on!
10
Except that you've got it backwards. California gives far more to the government in taxes than it receives back. In effect, its tax-paying residents are subsidizing those "hinterlands blokes."
13
Since California (and every other state) doesn't give a single dollar to the federal government, this is patently untrue.
6
I thought Democrats liked to pay high taxes. Did something change?
10
I'm rather tired of this "clever" remark. Democrats are willing for taxes to be higher, to pay for goods and services. So they are willing to pay higher taxes, so long as the burden is spread to everyone, including bob out in bobville.
6
abo, you might be tired of hearing it, but a central plank of the Democratic/Liberal paltform is that high taxes are necessary for expansive government. As for spreading the burden to everyone, that is not the progressive taxation scheme most liberals champion.
And, ironically, spreading the (federal) burden to everyone is exactly what limiting the SALT deduction does.
2
One of the reasons our taxes are so high is public sector employees continue to get traditional pensions and early retiree health care coverage. These benefits are very costly. Virtually no one in the private sector gets them any more. Public sector employees should be on 401k type plans and pay for their own health insurance if they retire early. If public sector benefits were aligned with the private sector our tax burden would be greatly reduced.
22
In Connecticut for state workers, it's not just the pensions and retiree healthcare. State employee salaries are in many cases far above similar positions in the private sector. OT spiking in pensions. Not 20K or 30K in OT earnings but in too many cases 150K in OT each year in the final three years. Some changes have been made for future hires (Hybrid 401K/Defined Benefit) but many current state retirees contributed 0 to 2 percent to their pension and 3 percent of healthcare.
3
Perhaps the private sector is wrong and the public employees are right.
4
Maybe you should have chosen a career in the public sector. Did you think the hiring bonuses, retention bonuses, stock options and other corporate goodies found in the private sector would last forever?
How about spend less, tax less!!
18
Well then, why not a new Federal law under which each State receives back in Federal spending exactly what that State's residents paid in Federal taxes? That should please the neo-Confederats, no?
17
Taking it one step further, why not another law under which each citizen receives back in Federal spending (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, defense, welfare, food safety, transportation safety, etc.) exactly what that taxpayer paid. Still sound fair to you? Didn't think so.
9
Earl--I absolutely concur
1
Once again, we have legislators scheming to help the rich avoid taxes. These schemes will not help most middle income people, at least not nearly as much.
2
You you guys better get over the red state / blue state thing. Also, if you want to toss Mississippi in the trash can you better remember that Mississippi has a higher percentage of black residents. So you not only hate poor white people, you hate poor blacks. How does that reconcile with your regularly stated mission? Carry on with the nonsense.
15
How does tax equity involve hatred?
Progressives fight for the poor everywhere, while conservatives just find ways to shift to ever more regressive taxation. That hurts all poor people.
When taxes are targeted by geographic location, and double taxation is used as a cudgel, the states so targeted must fight back. I don't think anyone suggested tossing Mississippi in a trash can, so where you got that from I don't know.
A mind that equates a quest for tax equity with hatred needs quiet time.
5
Poor states are not doing enough to bring their citizens up. I would not mind subsidizing them if we could see some results.
4
David, see freedoms rocks comment for hostility towards poor states. Mississippi is cited at least a hundred times in the comments as well. Quiet time? Yep, I need it.
No original thinking here, just more reactions from a political party that does work to a core set of beliefs. The Democratic Party needs to take a page out of the 1960s election playbook. Keep the message simple, register more voters, turn out the vote and then deliver on campaign promises. Some time in the very near future the seemingly disparate democratic party supporters are going either wake up and unite or cease to exist. To grow the base and gain commitment is like farming. You must begin with a clear understanding of what you want to grow, prepare the fields, plant the crops, tend the fields and then and only then will you harvest a bumper crop!
4
This paper just ran a story about the money waste and corruption that resulted in the most expensive mile of public transit ever built in the entire world. Hundreds of workers being paid to just show up, all kinds of chicanery and graft and self-dealing. This is one of the reasons taxes are so high and transit fares seem never to catch up with the costs of running the trains. It is not the fault of the Red States. It is an internal problem within the Blue States that can no longer be ignored by the voters.
21
It's a problem for all of us in all states.
Solution?
Fire all encumbents on both sides.
4
question from a San Francisco democrat -- mr deleon, does it ever occur to you to lower state taxes?
8
And disrupt the corrupt, "Tammany Hall" lifestyle? Never happen unless we get another Bloomberg or Giuliani in the Mayor's office. Cuomo's is OK (our Governor) but his rancor over the new tax law has me wondering what planet does he live on? Lifestyle costs in the entire NY region have been unaffordable for years and I just think lots of these politicians are positioning themselves for higher office. Period.
4
I live in a Blue State and I don't see a lot of people complaining about the tax bill. My perspective is that if I'm paying more in taxes, then I must be making more and I generally focus on the income side as opposed to minimizing taxes. I have friends that do try to minimize taxes and other expenses but I do wonder why they put so much effort into doing so.
The folks that we're talking about are well-off, and highly educated so presumably they're up on political trends. The first I recall of removing the mortgage interest and other deductions was under the Bush Administration. Nothing came of it but I imagine that these things have been up for debate for decades in Congress, likely by both parties.
Secondly, these well-off and highly educated folks should be very, very good at budgeting and should be able to absorb this increase with relative ease. I think that it's the middle-class ($50,000 to $80,000) that may not have the financial skills to manage small and moderate increases in their expenses that typically come with life.
2
John Xavier III, you acknowledge we are being taxed twice, but question why that is double taxation. On its face the answer is evident.
You raise corporate taxation and dividends as an "equivalent" example of double taxation, when in fact it is not.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged a corporate entity is, in fact, a Corporate Person, with rights of free speech (Citizens United) and religion (Hobby Lobby).
So when that Corporate Person pays dividends from income, they are paying other separate individual investors who gave the Corporate Person money.
This is equivalent to a patient paying a dentist with after tax money, and the dentist is taxed again for profit (or lawyer, CPA, etc.)
Taxes are not paid once with the creation of money supply, but every time transactionally.
So there is no double taxation of Corporate Persons, they pay a lower tax rate than I do even though I undoubtedly make less earned income than mid-size corporations.
The separate shareholders pay a lower dividend tax rate than I do as well, though they may receive unlimited sums of passive income.
The actual unfairness is the blue states that have invested in their economies and thus become prosperous are supporting the red states that do not invest, and want an increasing share of federal dollars extracted from the blue states.
But I don't believe in belly aching. I believe in fixing the problem assertively, proactively and in such a way that Congress may regret the can of worms opened.
9
Ha ha ha ha... The corporate income tax nonsense is clever, but ludicrous. People aren't taxed, income is. The corporate income is taxed twice. Period.
3
"This is equivalent to a patient paying a dentist with after tax money, and the dentist is taxed again for profit (or lawyer, CPA, etc.) "
More nonsense. The patient is taxed on their income and the dentist is taxed on his.
Big Brother smiles, though.
2
"The actual unfairness is the blue states that have invested in their economies and thus become prosperous are supporting the red states that do not invest, and want an increasing share of federal dollars extracted from the blue states."
More nonsense. Blue state citizens are taxed for services provided within Blue states. Their choice. Don't be a deadbeat and expect citizens in low tax states to pay more in taxes to fund your deduction. Pay your fair share.
4
I would happily pay MORE in taxes for government that is fair to all, does not favor the super-rich and corporations, provides decent health care and education to all and has an up to date infrastructure.
But, hey, I'm just a fool working for a salary, not someone living off inheritance money or investments, unlike the idle rich layabouts at Mar-a-lago.
15
As a top tier California taxpayer, I have absolutely no issue at capping deductions at what I consider to be a quite reasonable amount. This legislation serves as a brake on runaway taxation by (primarily) blue state legislatures. How wonderfully ironic that said legislatures are suddenly concerned about higher taxes.
13
My wife and I had $23,100 in itemized deductions last year. Now we will get a $24,000 standard deduction but lose over $8,000 of personal exemptions. Net result: a $450 increase in our taxes (even with rates). Thanks a lot, GOP. Have some champagne and cigars on your yacht on me.
8
"My wife and I had $23,100 in itemized deductions last year. Now we will get a $24,000 standard deduction but lose over $8,000 of personal exemptions. Net result: a $450 increase in our taxes (even with rates). Thanks a lot, GOP. Have some champagne and cigars on your yacht on me."
Um... if you have $23K in itemized deductions, you are the wealthy. My heart doesn't bleed about the $450.
9
Without red states blue states would have:
More bang per tax dollar (in general, red states receive more in federal monies than they pay in taxes);
Lower health care insurance (in general, red states are far more unhealthy than are blue states);
More progress towards “energy independence”, alternative energy sources and an end to subsidizing the extraction industry (red states, in general, are the most willing to drill and mine, and consequently, have the most “accidents” for which the rest of us have to pay. Twice: higher energy prices and clean-up expenses.) which would also lead to lower pollution which would enhance the overall health of the populace which would lead to lower health care insurance (see above);
An infrastructure that could be readily improved and repaired;
A better educated populace with higher education priorities and standards to match the rest of the industrialized world;
A more collegial, reasoning and reasonable national government;
A less bellicose and more reasoning and reasonable foreign policy;
A far less pervasive and poisonous Fox and talk radio opinion atmosphere.
It would be simply exquisite if red states would take it in the proverbial shorts if Trump’s “promised” tax cuts would, in reality, put a crimp in their leeching.
Would I pay more in my state taxes if such were to occur? You betcha...
12
The red states contribute oil and gas from fracking. They are the food producers of the US. They are becoming the manugacturing center of this nation. Red states are the consumers of the entertainment and financial services of the east and west coast. MSNBC is just as toxic as Fox.
We are a single nation that bennifts from our diversity.
4
We can get our food from other sources (California, Mexico, Canada), we can get our oil and gas from lots of places and are quickly moving to sustainable energy. So I really don't see what red states have we need. We are not a single nation when some states have a disproportionate representation and power over our government. I am not alone in feeling that this past year has done more to change how I feel about this country than any single event in recent history. My state's rights are more important to me than any the rights of any other state. The GOP has done a wonderful job of dividing us. Other than my occasional Florida vacations, I don't miss the red states at all. My next vacation, when I can afford it, will be in a blue state or mexico or europe or canada.
6
The GDP of Blue States is $11.1 Trillion compared to a paltry $5.6 Trillion for the Red States.
Blue States should therefore have Twice the voting power.
2
This must be part of the healing process Trump referred to, right after the election. Look at the comments. What better way to make America great again than to get Americans to resent other Americans? Russian meddling? Why bother, mission accomplished.
12
C'mon the deduction of state taxes from federal taxes is unjust and needed to be ended.
The arguments against the Trump law needs to be more subtle:
1/ There is no provision in the income tax code to take into account the difference in the cost of living. $100k earned in NYC is not the same as $100k earned in Kansas. The SALT deduction was unjust, but there needs to be different standard deductions based on where you live, to reflect the difference in the cost of living.
2/ Blue states need to be more aggressive in seeking federal spending in their states. There was a loose quid pro quo between the SALT deduction and the tendency to target Red states with federal spending. With the SALT leg gone, there is no longer any reason to target Red states.
3/ The SALT deduction needed to be phased out, over five or ten years, rather than eliminated in one swipe. People planned on certain deductions when they bought a home or decided where to live; simply eliminating it overnight is crazy.
4
"1/ There is no provision in the income tax code to take into account the difference in the cost of living. $100k earned in NYC is not the same as $100k earned in Kansas. The SALT deduction was unjust, but there needs to be different standard deductions based on where you live, to reflect the difference in the cost of living."
Nonsense. Move. The difference in the cost of living is compensated for already. If I lower taxes for wealthy deadbeats with a higher cost of living because they have expensive beachfront property, will I get to use their beach? They bought the beach. Pay for it.
1
"Nonsense. Move."
"The difference in the cost of living is compensated for already. "
The cost of food is higher in NY than it is in Kansas. How is that compensated?
1
"Nonsense. Move."
Why should people have to move - leave family, friends, etc. - simply to accommodate an unjust tax system? Government is supposed to be there to help people, not be a tyrant forcing them to do things they don't want to.
5
In his discussion of fixes, the reporter ignores the fact that local property taxes not state income taxes make up the biggest part of SALT at least in NJ. These local property taxes would not be addressed by the fixes discussed.
My NJ property tax is 7K, my state income tax is 14K. Really not a useful generalization.
2
This tax plan clearly punishes those in high tax (often democratic) states. My political and social attitudes are far more in tune with those states and nearly the opposite of Texas, the state I've lived in since '98 (always in Houston). However, with all of the problems I read about in big cities in those democratic states, I'm beginning to think that something is seriously wrong, whereas the Texas approach seems to be working, or at least is overall better for more people. Texas has no personal state income tax and Houston has no city tax. Yes, the schools here could be better, but with half of the public school kids in Houston below the poverty level, its hard for the schools to do much. My daughters, going to public schools, have opportunities here that I never had in Ohio, including magnet programs for Spanish-English education and science. Roads are generally in decent to excellent shape and the cost of living is much lower than NYC or the Bay Area. Low skilled workers don't make much, but the cost of living and taxes are so low, that I suspect many do better than in those high tax states. The social support system is slim, but again, the cost of living is low. Compare this to those low-skilled workers in NYC or the Bay Area, or just about any other large city. What, for example, is California doing with all those taxes that Texas sees no need to collect? Undergrad tuition and fees are about the same for state schools in both states.
4
Texas never has snow or ice. It has endless land so you can just keep spreading out and building new towns at low cost. With roads that never get destroyed by ice and salt. A much much less expensive proposition.
4
I've lived in Texas and was born in and now live back in NY.
If you think the cost of living difference between NY and Tx comes down to snow, ice and land you're mistaken.
I love both places. They're chock full of good Americans.
NY has a drastic political corruption problem mirrored by the federal government.
To start the fix, I see the formula as follows:
Fire all encumbents.
Term limits.
No money in lobbying, none.
Small dollar/hard cap on campaign donations.
3
One might wonder why the Republicans are not interested in the fact that all the high tax blue states have the highest incomes while the low tax red states have the greatest poverty? The fifty state experiment has already proven that Republican economics, low taxes and small government, only delivers poverty, which they are only too happy to impose on everyone.
14
Or Democrats impose on everyone through exorbitant taxes, waste and fraud.
5
EVERY Republican congressperson in a blue state should be voted out of office, NO exceptions. It's time to end Republican tyranny and restore democracy to the US. Failure to do this would be proof that the majority of voters in these states lack basic intelligence.
12
So one-party (Democrat) rule would not be tyranny?
6
RE: Bob Krantz
The post says nothing about ending the two party or a multi-party system in the sates. Governors and state legislatures were not part of the post.
The irony is that these states support other American states with lower incomes.
11
Your comment is not based on statistical evidence. Please provide more details on your comment...???
4
Whatever you do, DO NOT move to Florida.
6
Democrats in the state houses of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and California want to soak the rich, provided the poor and middle class taxpayers in other states foot the bill.
4
Taxpayers in NY, NJ, and CA pay more into the federal tax system and receive less back in the form of federal spending than taxpayers in red states. On top of that, they pay high taxes to provide for the needs of their citizens. They aren't expecting poor and middle class taxpayers in other states to foot the bill.
5
I would argue that poorer states (I don’t use divisive terms like “red”), get more in federal funds because they are...poor.
I guess you are only concerned about the poor in your own state, and that’s enough to make me feel blue.
2
I applaud you Avi , since that the rich like the Don have soaked the poor and middle class of NY by his numerous bankruptcies , not to mention cheating small contractors of the money he owed them. I don't think you in Delray beach , Florida or other states foot NY state's bill . Something is wrong with that extrapolation.
1
The obvious solution is to eliminate waste. But I don’t think Cuomo is running to ensure the MTA isn’t wasting billions of dollars anytime soon. He needs the donations that MTA contractors give him.
9
Thank you.....a honest man who knows how horrific these States are run by the MTA example. Lots of good reading on the New York Times piece on the MTA.
Utter stupidity, corruption and laziness spanning decades and by many Governors and Mayors.
4
After reading the tax waste of billions of dollars building one mile of 2nd ave NYC subway Im shocked people are more angry about the state tax revenue when much of its is wasted. Why is it Florida, Texas with more people then NY, CT, NJ can survive quite nicely without ANY income tax, while NY with less people, much more industry tax base, like movie making, Fashion, and WALL STREET! has to tax its citizens so much. Its stems from bad decisions from government officials on unions give aways, pensions, and so much corruption/waste. Dem leaders just want vote that stem from give aways. Just lower taxes already! Im tired of $15 dollar tolls, and countless taxes!
12
Waste and fraud.
5
California, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, Utah and Minnesota all pay state taxes, and already pay more to the federal government than they receive in services.
Of the seven states that don't raise any income taxes, 6 are net receivers of federal dollars. The worst offender is Florida, receiving 4.5 dollars from the government for every dollar sent.
California's economy would make it the 7th largest in the world, ahead of France.
New York's economy would be the 11th largest in the world, larger than South Korea's and Russia's economy.
The GOP Congress threw down the gauntlet in attempting to further tax blue states and disrupt blue state economies with an unfair tax regime.
Blue states needs to think strategically to protect our economies and our citizens from the current menace in office.
The states could go much further as a result to protect our own interests from a tyrannical government, as was foreseen by the Nation's Founders. The blue states must anticipate further targeted enmity with respect to law.
16
It would be nice if you balanced your facts. As with any matter of accounting, the answers always depend on who you ask, and what you are asking. If you do not take into account the massive federal investment in California water projects; the century of military spending and aerospace development; exemptions to our well endowed institutions of higher education; and ongoing tax breaks to the wealthiest of Americans, then I suppose you might find California receiving less than it sends. You might, but you really shouldn't. So also, two of the greatest recipients of federal money are New Mexico and Alabama, indeed, and yet one would make a mistake jumping to quick conclusions as to why.
Several other writers have raised the NY subway boondoggle as an example of corruption and waste. We here, brother, should look not further than our own subway boondoggle; the waste of public resources on parklets; bicycle lanes; the ever increasing fees for doing business or parking your car and the constant appeasements both to the tax haters and the free lunch crowd.
2
Let's get this straight. Rather than reducing rampant spending on illegals, state welfare programmed and bloated salaries, legislators are looking at ways to increase payroll tax?
16
The Republican tax bill did not cause blue state property taxes to be high, rather it only removed the deductibility of these taxes. Residents in these states should be demanding accountability from their governors and legislators as to why they must pay such high taxes. It is clear from the officials quoted here, that maybe five minutes of consideration was given to lowering taxes before concluding, "Nah!"
14
Maybe we should stop sending more money to the feds than we get back. We are subsidizing places like Kansas and Mississippi.
13
Civilization is what my taxes pay for in NYC (not nearly enough of it). Our public libraries are now open seven days a week and that is a great start!
14
We can see what low taxes does to a state. We don't all want to live in poverty like the Red States do.
10
"in singling out certain states, had broken an implicit compact with them"
Right, and because I might live in the Bay Area my "implicit compact" is I'll become a cultural Marxist and vote for Pelosi and Harris.
About time he New York and California real estate markets are no longer a means to steal from the rest of the states.
Rather than whine about the loss of revenue or deductions, get real with local real estate taxes, though, it might be problem with all that future promised pension funding.
7
You have it backwards, since you regard taking out more than you put in, while blue states put in more than they take out, as "theft".
How does that work. Your claims are without merit.
16
I find it delightful to watch the liberals in the big blue states squeal like stuck hogs now that their special interest subsidy, the Federal SALT and property taxes deductions, are capped.
The days of the Big Blue states having their bloated states taxes bills paid for, in part, by the rest of the country by underpaying their "fair share" (to borrow the left's favorite term with repsect to taxes) of the federal taxes is done.
For decades I have listened to these Big Blue snort and grunt that they send more money to the federal government than they get back and becuase of that, us in bumpkin land, need to take a knee and kiss their genorosity.
The alternative view is these so called red states have modest budgets that are closely aligned to what is actually affordable and in effect have been taking it in the wallet for the big blue states.
I am all for having well funded schools, police, and other related public works. What I am not for is paying for local social programs a half a continent away from where I live.
Thank you President Trump exposing this inequality.
MAGA.
15
You seemed to have missed the facts.
Red states have been taking out more than they put in.
Blue states have been putting in more than they take out.
So what you recommend is to increase the amount you take from blue states, out of revenge for their generosity.
28
Oh please, stop this tired old story of low tax red states subsidizing high tax blue states. In spite of the SALT deductions, NJ sends more money to Washington, D.C. than it receives (roughly 76 cents for every dollar paid). Red states are able to keep their taxes low due to the generous return of federal money, mostly from NJ, NY and CA. Pitting one state against another as punishment for their voting history is childish and repulsive but very "Trumpish". MAGA - Morons Are Governing America.
14
"Red states have been taking out more than they put in."
Red states don't do anything. People do. What is true is that Red voters in ALL states pay more in taxes and get less in benefits than Blue voters in all states.
"So what you recommend is to increase the amount you take from blue states, out of revenge for their generosity."
No, what the tax change does is eliminate part of a tax loophole for the wealthy.
1
Lazy, kicking the can down the road, union & corrupt, bloated local and State governments in NJ, NY and Ct should be more creative and hard-nosed than simply putting their energies to "playing the game and beating the system".
It's that sort of mindless, lazy mindset which got us into relying on the Feds to pay for our "fat-stupid" lifestyle. Don't believe me? Visit places like Wyoming and other vibrant states where simple hard work and fair taxes get them quite far.
The subways....as per the New York Times articles are fat, inefficient models of how States run things. Anti Poverty programs......I'd venture to say that though you need a safety net for the truly disadvantaged and disabled at local and federal levels, there's tons of cheating going on. Cash businesses, lying, illegal activities etc...etc....
I've lived in NY my entire 60 year life, but to be honest.....in my opinion people in lesser taxed states are smarter, harder working persons who don't "get off" on having others pay their freight.
Smart, Jaded, Over-Taxed New Yorker!!!
15
You mean those people in the "lazy moocher states?"
4
NJ, NY and Ct should be more creative
they should be more like California. Allow alcoholic beverages to be sold nearly anywhere without a license, may be allow cannabis to be sold for recreational purposes and cease criminalizing the possession of it, develop for fee public water sports, such as a man made surfing place, within the State (such as the barren and unused swamp area adjacent the New Jersey's side of the Hudson River), increase the sales taxes in New Jersey, tax internet sales' transactions (NJ AND CT don't tax yet), and develop more industries. California has many industries and doesn't rely upon just one. Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, and Tennessee need to follow there as well.
1
I thought the Dems in NY and CA wanted the rich to pay more taxes? So now they will. Oh, I forgot: they meant the "other rich people." You know - the bad rich people who live somewhere else.
19
Too bad the blue states can't secede and leave the red states to fend for themselves without the money they get from our taxes.
21
"Too bad the blue states can't secede and leave the red states to fend for themselves without the money they get from our taxes."
Agreed. Since it is the Red voters in ALL States that earn more, pay more in taxes, and get less in benefits than the deadbeat Red voters in all states, it would be only a matter of time before the wealth migrated to the Blue states.
I am all for letting the progs be accountable for their governance. Remember, with the split, each State keeps their own debt....
2
Bring it on.
1
Why can’t they? No one would care.
The high tax should reduce taxes on their residents and manage their states more efficiently. There are a whole range of states from no state taxes to very high state taxes. There has to be an acceptable average limit that can be deducted and that is what the Tax bill allows for.
4
Maybe Louisville needs to subsidize their own ignorant drug addicted unhealthy poor in coal mining Appalachia. Blue states are subsidizing and providing services for their own down trodden unfortunate poor plus yours.
4
Outright theft on behalf of what were already "taker" states from states that conduct themselves on behalf of the larger community.
Shameless looting and greed, that's our modern Republican kleptocratic party.
Now they're hoping the debt will get large enough they can steal our social security and medicare that we paid for all our working lives.
Steal our money, not cut back on the misnamed "entitlements". They are the "entitled" ones, stealing for their wealthy donors who keep them in office.
19
Why not ask the harder question? Why are NY, NJ, and CA ripping off their taxpayers? Why is that MTA in NYC spending billions on building one mile of subway track? We the taxpayers need a revolution in the tax, spend, and corrupt states mostly controlled by democrats.
15
Can I take my Social Security as an LLC?
4
Resistance must come from every available asset at our disposal, blue states must resist and act, bravo.
9
Commenters who refer to blue state residents as free-loaders must not be aware of the outsized contributions to support states like Mississippi, Louisiana, you know, the Trump base. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-gi...
17
Why should state taxes penalize federal government receipts by being deductible against federal income tax? Why should the federal government suffer because statehouses, over which the federal government has no control, pass tax laws that take advantage of the fact that any tax paid to the states under such tax laws reduces what is paid to the federal government? Makes zero sense to me.
As it is, the federal government was generous by allowing a deduction up to $10k. In most states, for most people, that is enough.
I own property in Westchester County, the most expensive county in the US. I pay four levels of tax: federal, NY tax, Westchester county tax, local town tax (including schools to which my kids don't go). This list does not include sales taxes. How do four levels of taxation make sense? Why do we need county government? And so on ...
See, the new tax law passed under the presumed ignoramus Donald Trump is spurring some thought and introspection, and I trust in the near future political action to limit taxes at the state and local level, as well as federally. This will be a very good outcome. And by the way, the first question asked of politicians running for office will be: What will you do to reduce taxes? Please be specific.
8
It is not the business of the federal government to tell States how to run their tax systems, and it is unfair to deliberately target those states in order to give huge tax breaks to the plutocrats.
5
David, I don't understand your post. The federal government does not tell the states how to run their tax systems - but you seem to think that limiting states' ability to make state and local taxes deductible against federal taxes is the federal government telling states what to do. But that's backwards: under FEDERAL tax laws SALT was deductible and now it isn't. Now it’s the FEDERAL government telling states how they are allowed to treat FEDERAL taxes, not how to treat the states’ own state and local taxes. In this new law, the federal government says nothing about those state and local taxes (only that states are no longer allowed to steal from the federal government, which the federal government tolerated under the earlier law, but no longer). I trust that clears that up.
2
John Xavier III, on what basis do you claim that states that invest in their economies and are thus more prosperous are stealing from the federal government?
The same states whose residents will be double taxed are the states that currently send more to the federal government than they receive. How is it stealing when states with SALT already send more money to the federal government than they receive?
Meanwhile, 6 of 7 states that don't raise state income taxes are "stealing" from the federal government (in your parlance) as they receive more in federal dollars than they provide.
Your claims are baseless, logic specious, the tax scheme is targeted and corrupt, and it will be met unrelenting resistance.
6
Red states should not get in dollar more than they pay in. Get that you idiots!
9
Is it possible for the writer of this article, as well as those many commentators who are gleefully looking forward to increasing taxes on people in some higher tax states, to recognize that much of the opposition to this tax bill lies not with its direct impact on individuals but the massive increase in public indebtedness required to pay for it? The Republicans are getting away with this misdirection by leading the discussion into the effect on taxpayers, while risking longterm damage to the country. Maybe some of this is intended, as suggested by the talk about the need to cut social programs because of the increasing debt incurred by this bill. What a country!
5
Where was this sentiment during obama's 8 years of destroying the federal budget? Somewhere on the mountains of the moon?
6
You realize that the Republicans controlled Congress during most of the Obama administration, and they were responsible for the budget.
6
Amazing how Trump has forced Liberals to complain about paying higher taxes.
This gets funnier every day.
13
I don't object to paying higher taxes to have good education and a functioning government. I do object to singling out blue States for unfair treatment. There is a reason I don't want to live in a state like Kansas.
12
Davey,, There is nothing wrong with Kansas...or any of our states in this great country.
You should learn to be more open minded about things.
7
That is funny coming form a republican.
3
BUT BUT the dems want the rich to be taxed. It looks like they are really rescuing the rich at the expense of the working class. OOPS
6
I see its OK to tax the rich but not our rich.
11
This isn't about taxing the rich, it's about a Republican tax law that goes out of its way to target blue States.
9
The tax bill is a huge tax cut for the rich. Have you forgotten about them in your attempt to demonize families earning $100,000 to $200,000 in high cost of living areas? The tax bill will also increase the deficit, leading to reduced federal spending on social programs and investments that poor and middle-class Americans depend on.
3
How about we #bluexit and take all of our tax dollars with us, leaving the red states with the god, their guns and an economy that resembles that of Ethiopia. We will keep our great schools, our healthcare, and the belief that we are all in this together. Except the red staters. They can go try to find others to mooch off of. We should be done.
19
So the Democratic states are seeking ways to keep the money that the President has given back to the people? I raised a family and very quickly I found out that if you cannot afford something you can always get credit. I found over time that debt is far worse than the credit received. Debt should only be used to create more wealth. Like building something that will pay for itself. But one thing I learned that the Democrats haven't, if you spend more than you take in then you will go bankrupt. Especially when you are using other people's money. Spending less is the answer but never in the mind of a politician.
5
This law adds trillions to the national debt, gives huge tax breaks to the ultra wealthy, and deliberately targets middle income taxpayers in blue States.
9
In Canada, provincial taxes are not deductible from federal taxes. And it isn't a low-tax wasteland.
Your state taxes are supposed to pay for state services. It's a transaction between you and the state government. It should be independent from the transaction between you and the federal government. The SALT deductions distorted that. Many people are pointing out the blue states subsidize red states overall, but it's Democrats that keep voting for those programs.
7
We in blue states believe in the common good -- and we extend that to the red states that we voted to support. Punishing us for our success and generosity is not a solution to anything.
7
In some states there is up to a 100% refund of contributions to PRIVATE schools. That sort of refund cuts some wealthy taxpayer's costs because the same states don't require much if any property tax, and don't need to raise as much money for education because so many PRIVATE (READ THAT AS SEGREGATED WHITE RELIGIOUS) schools. In addition, the new tax law allows such contributions to be DEDUCTED, so that a wealthy contributor (BIGOT or SMART, if taking advantage of new law) may receive essentially a 37% PROFIT on a contribution. If NEW YORK, CALIF, NJ, etc simply set up an equivalent structure for PROPERTY taxes for education, limited to PUBLIC schools only, a whole bunch of people could shift the tax burden onto the US govt because of that new tax law provision. Yes, the contributions would be paid back and the wealthy would get huge federal deductions, but if the refund was merely 85% rather than 100%, the state would receive 15% clear, and the contributor would net between 5% and 15%. And, the states would have huge float revenue. Finally, the states merely need to have a check mark on their state tax forms, allowing a taxpayer to merely make a contribution rather than a tax payment, with a box for how much they want to have refunded and a stated minimum amount that will not be refunded.
1
maybe its time for ny to change its state constitution so that its extremely generous pensions dont have to pay 8% annual increases in benefits
maybe its time for nys to enact liability reform so that our taxes dont go to pay multimillion dollar settlements
maybe its time to have medicaid copays to reduce unnecessary usage
10
Maybe what you say is true, but it's up to the States to decide those things for themselves, not by Republicans who don't live there.
5
The best way to do this would be for Democrats to take over both houses of Congress in 2018, then the White House in 2020, and then replace that section of Trump's "tax reform" (along with so many others). This can be fixed, if the trends continue. By 2020 it will be apparent to many who now get tax cuts that "tax reform" is a scam, that they will end up paying more in taxes, and paying for the increased deficits, so that the great majority of the tax reductions can go to the 1%.
3
Even though our children were college age when we moved to upstate NY, we chose a town with relatively high school taxes because, frankly, we wanted to live near neighbors who valued education. Yes, NY is being unfairly targeted by this tax bill but would you want to live in Mississippi, Idaho, or Kansas?
6
Move to Wyoming.....beautiful State and no taxes. Colorado is also beautiful too. NY, NJ and CT are filled with corrupt, bloated union twerps who have bankrupted us all.
The only criticism I have of the current tax law changes is that they should have phased it in over a few years to give the States time to adjust to the new lay of the land.
New Yorker, Jaded and Honest
8
On the surface this tax bill is about increasing the deficit by lowering federal income so that actions to eliminate entitlement programs can be justified. A sub priority is to give a free reign to business so the business class (middle class) can get richer and contribute more to the GOP. With riches comes power, which Trump understands and utilizes to his advantage. The thinking behind this bill is not about punishing states that didn't vote for Trump. It just so happens that they provide services the federal government has neglected for year and that costs money. To make the long story short, democracy and striving for equality lives in the blue states, and autocracy with the rich controlling the underprivileged, in the red states. Does it make sense now why Trump admires Putin and other dictators and is highly critical of democratic nations? The Tax bill is not about reforming the tax code, but changing our system of government. Much more insidious than just taxes. If you don't believe me, ask Bannon.
13
High tax states are FREE LOADING by having their citizens pay less in federal income taxes. They're essentially skimming revenue into the state coffer that in lower-tax states goes to federal income taxes. This capping of the state tax deductions is righting a long-standing wrong. Whine away, but this is long overdue.
5
On the contrary. High tax blue states give more money that then gets distributed to the red states. WE are subsidizing you. Moreover, we prioritize good education, public transportation, and decent pay for teachers, firefighters, the police, and other crucial services.
1
The data show that high tax blue states put more into the Federal Govt than they receive. How about a law that says states can get back only what they put in - and red states lose bigly.
2
you are wrong here. new York, for example, pays more in federal taxes than it gets back in federal spending. new jersey and California the same. the high-tax states are subsidizing lower-tax states. ending deductibiility will not affect this.
2
Here's an interesting idea: Cut spending so your taxes don't have to be so damn high to begin with.
16
One solution that the democrats seem to avoid is, lower the tax burden in your states.
They just want to keep the spending levels the same and just give money away.
Giveaways = democrat votes.
13
Always surprised at the energy and ideology behind the call for lower taxes. Where is the consideration for how we support civil society for all? Solid infrastructure, education, social security, health care and an environment that doesn’t kill us with toxins costs money. Want to keep lowering taxes and maintain a decent quality of life? You’ll need to be a millionaire living behind an electrified fence guarded by a private security company. First world abutting third. Lots of examples to refer to locally and globally.
7
And what do you call this tax scam giveaway to the Oligarchs ?
4
Sorry but I don't want to be like Kansas or Mississippi. I value good schools, world class universities, great job opportunities, fantastic cultural events, spectacular parks, etc.
5
The point of the article is not to deprive residents of high tax states from reaping what they sow but to show why they are not getting maximum benefit from their tax dollar. If the culture of corruption that the article points out was normalized people who pay $2.75 to ride dirty unsafe subways might ride clean efficient ones for $1.50.
6
What is fair taxation policy for people and enterprises? One could make the case that a limit on state tax deductability is actually progressive taxation - it should act (by itself) a higher burden to people with enough wealth they are paying more than $10k/yr in state taxes. Is that good policy? Or is it aimed at Blue states? Or both? Likewise, good progressive tax policy (i.e. reducing the tax RATE paid by lower income/wealth people) would benefit from raising the limit on which Social Security taxes are levied - in fact, why even have any limit on that? Sadly, our nation is too chaotic (partly because of 50 states being "united" as a nation) to craft a nationally coherent tax system. I'd like to see corporations/enterprises taxed on their revenues, not their profits, as STate of Washington does - why should the rest of us subsidize the government services needed by an enterprise because it isn't managed well enough to earn profits (or it hides "profits" via accounting tricks or mgmt strategies). Fundamentally, the Federal individual income tax system is about taxing people on income beyond basic expenses of living - that's what the personal exemptions/deductions are about. That's fair taxation policy - but then how much to deduct a family's income the state/local taxes that are part of basic living, like buying food? All? If people own a $1 million home and borrowed 90% of its cost, should all that mortgage interest be deducted from their taxable income?
2
With the undoing of the ACA, healthcare for all of us will rise more rapidly. Even workers that have healthcare thru their employees will send reduce paychecks because employers will pass the increase expenses on to their employees. These increases will by far negate any benefits most Americans will see from the new tax law.
6
"With the undoing of the ACA, healthcare for all of us will rise more rapidly."
No it won't. By what logic? It may rise for people buying health insurance on the exchanges, but that's a tiny percentage of our population.
"Even workers that have healthcare thru their employees will send reduce paychecks because employers will pass the increase expenses on to their employees."
What increased expenses? Tapping the keg a little early today?
3
Good point. Removing the mandate will cause rates to go up a lot, since healthy people won't be required to buy insurance...and insurance only works when all people participate ( for the people who will jump on the "why should "healthy" premiums subsidize "sick" ones bandwagon...how would you like it if only drivers that get into accidents bought car insurance?)
2
There is a civil war coming. The leeches of the old Confederate states that of course have low taxes since they had poor education system, no health services, roads in need of repair, poorly paid police and fire. I lived in Alabama for five years and it was always Thank God for Mississippi which was 50th, Alabama was 49th. Yes, time for the Blue states to start to keep their Federal money - Alabama for every $1 gets back $5 where do you think that other $4 comes from. Like slavery the red neck Republicans and their clown are pushing for a Civil War. Bring it on. Let's see how well the leeches of the South do without the money from the Blue states let them eat dirt. I can't wait to see how much in this new socalled infrastructure bill will be going to the leeches, yes they love no taxes, but love to suck it out of the rest of the wealthy states. Time for them to start paying their own way. Jim Trautman
31
Absolutely on point! California, for one, has carried the South and other burdensome, dying parts of the country on its back for too long. The low-tax South is an anchor weighing down dynamic states like California and New York that are the engines of American progress and prosperity. While places like San Francisco, Silicon Valley, Seattle, NYC, are leading the nation in innovation, the South leads the nation in poverty rates and opioid addiction. Taxpayers on the coasts pay, while other “Americans” sit and collect federal checks. Talk about unfair.
6
"There is a civil war coming. The leeches of the old Confederate states that of course have low taxes since they had poor education system, no health services, roads in need of repair, poorly paid police and fire."
So if Blue voters pay more in taxes and get less in benefits than Red voters, the Red voters are leeches?
I agree. That's also the case.
1
Why should the Feds give up their tax receipts (considering the huge deficits we have too) just because another government entity demands taxes?
Citizens MUST KNOW that each government they allow themselves to be subservient to, will TAX THEM.
This issue is as sensible as requiring all states to allow their citizens to deduct federal taxes paid.
Governments tax. That's how they operate. If you want lower taxes, you need less government. If you want more government, then it will cost more. It's really that simple.
2
What irks me is the specific, politically motivated targeting of big blue States by a bunch of Republicans who live elsewhere for the purpose of rewarding their uberwealthy controllers.
5
Republicans decided to rob Democrats to pay for their give-away to billionaires and real estate developers like Donald Trump. Blue States are totally justified in doing everything possible to make their citizens whole after this massive criminal act. For states with taxes that pay for things like education and health care (unlike, say, Texas!), they face a mass Exodus if they don't do something. Needless to say. Republicans in blue states who voted for this mess are dead meat in 2018.
18
Wait the proof will be in the pudding , you must really believe when he claimed this was going to hurt him more. In a pig's eye , how many lies has he told?? Totally brainwashed , but hey you can believe anything you want .
2
Deducting State/Local taxes is a loophole. Do the Dems really want to be defending loopholes? Just shows that this isn't based in good policy, but in politics. If you're gonna clean up the tax code, getting rid of deductions for the rich is necessary, regardless of who it hits.
6
The GOP always whines and moans that the federal government has too much power and much of that power should be controlled in the states. Now they want to penalize those states for doing what they wanted in the first place. The other irony is that these penalized blue states already pay more to the federal government than receive....Red states tend to be the net benefactors of federal subsidies.
8
"The GOP always whines and moans that the federal government has too much power and much of that power should be controlled in the states. Now they want to penalize those states for doing what they wanted in the first place."
Um...no they don't. They are simply eliminating a tax deduction for the wealthy so that assistance to the poor and middle class can be increased.
"The other irony is that these penalized blue states already pay more to the federal government than receive....Red states tend to be the net benefactors of federal subsidies."
Completely false. Source?
2
Republicans have alienated their middle and upper middle class supporters. Nothing in their tax bill will persuade any part of the democratic base to view the Republican Party positively. Time will tell how that works for them as electoral strategy.
2
"Republicans have alienated their middle and upper middle class supporters."
Yes, I'm sure they will be all bummed out with the tax rate reduction they just received.
2
interesting to read some of the comments from people in low tax states. sound a little nasty or is that my imagination?
not unexpectedly, the trump tax cuts are pitting one region against the other...precisely the type of chaos he thrives on. we feel we are revenue exporters to them, they look at us as big spenders...we all lose..they just don't realize it yet.
more importantly, however, when you look at the vindictiveness of the tone, one realizes that we are two separate countries, each of which has little time left or sympathy for the other
if the tax dodges fail, maybe it is time for us to take stock...they don´t like us, we don´t like them. although always painful, divorces are sometimes necessary. maybe we should have let them divorce at the time of the Civil War.
NY, NJ, CT, MA, CA, OR, WA, IL, DC would be a very wealthy and much more homogeneous country. They could get to keep the Stars and Bars, Dixie, all those statues they love. We wouldn't have to be preoccupied with Trump every minute of the day.
You may think this sounds like hyperbole. No...we really don't like each other.
Think about it.....ciao and have a nice day........We'd both win!
24
Agreed. Take Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, Maine and New Hampshire, too, but Illinois will have to stay. The progs can move out, we'd be glad to buy them out. I'd prefer to keep things contiguous as possible.
I have little doubt that within a generation, the wealth in the prog nation will very steadily be transferred to the United States.
Maybe it’s time for high tax states to reevaluate their spending. I saw a piece a few days ago about how much money the MTA wastes. If billions weren’t being wasted to appease political donors, then taxes could be lowered. Maybe teachers shouldn’t get ridiculous pensions. Maybe government secretaries should not make 6 figures. That’s how you reduce taxes- cut all the waste.
5
"But perhaps more significant, cutting taxes would also mean cutting funding for schools, subway systems, anti-poverty programs and other services that residents in those states have come to expect."
This.
There's a reason states like Mississippi and Alabama are always at the bottom of the 50 states every year in quality-of-life measurements like income, education, health.
Apparently Republicans want New York and Connecticut to be more like Mississippi and Alabama.
15
J, do you believe in choice?
Then how about the choice for people in different states (and local areas) to decide how much government-funded services they want (and how high they want their local taxes)?
And then, how about the people in states that support high taxation, and (I hope) high quality services, continue to pay their share of what we agree to spend on the federal level?
I do believe in choice, and I choose to live in a state that taxes me and also provides decent services to me and treats the vulnerable somewhat humanely. You're certainly free to live in Mississippi if you want.
2
I am glad (really) that you are happy where you live and what you pay for it. I am happy where I am also, and feel like my state and local spending provides more than adequate services (and also addresses the needs of the vulnerable) for about 1/10th of what I would pay in NY.
Constitution says equal treatment under the law, the cap of the same amount for all people for property taxes, is that equal treatment under the law as much as federal minimum wage is.
2
This tax scheme foisted on the American public despite widespread contempt demands that states and their citizens act with the same creativity and fervor as business do in legally avoiding taxes.
This tax scheme was purposeful in identifying states and populations that did not vote for Trump, and seeks to extract a penalty. That cannot and must not go unchallenged.
There are many ways for state governments to structure tax receipts so as to escape this illegitimate double taxation.
A payroll tax paid by employers on all income above a certain threshold, revenue neutral to the previous state and local income tax, is the most straightforward.
An employer would offset the payroll tax with an equivalent drop in salaries similar to payroll after state and local tax deductions.
It is a win for businesses and employees, as the attempted double taxation by the federal government would not succeed, business could retain and attract employees and employees would not be punished for this corrupt tax scheme.
I imagine until Democrats are a majority again, the government may try patches, but they won't work.
As has been the case with corporations, once large sums of tax money are involved, particularly with a bill written as poorly as this one, it is easy to find work arounds to reach tax fairness.
In this case, the Congressional rush to write tax policy in the margins of bills, rather than deliver cohesive tax reform, will be their undoing.
6
Why does limiting SALT represent double taxation? State receipts and federal receipts are two different things. In effect, we have two Caesars: one in DC, and one (in my case) in Albany. Yes, we are being taxed twice but by different people. I get the point that it's not nice to have two Caesars, but how is that double taxation? (For a counterexample, taxing dividends at the corporate and personal level is in fact double taxation, since the money goes to the same entity.)
To undo the perceived unfairness to "rich" people in the profligate (blue) states, we should work to reduce SALT as well as federal taxes.
3
John Xavier III, you acknowledge we are being taxed twice, but question why that is double taxation. On its face the answer is evident.
You raise corporate taxation and dividends as an "equivalent" example of double taxation, when in fact it is not.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged a corporate entity is, in fact, a Corporate Person, with rights of free speech (Citizens United) and religion (Hobby Lobby).
So when that Corporate Person pays dividends from income, they are paying other separate individual investors who gave the Corporate Person money.
This is equivalent to a patient paying a dentist with after tax money, and the dentist is taxed again for profit (or lawyer, CPA, etc.)
Taxes are not paid once with the creation of money supply, but every time transactionally.
So there is no double taxation of Corporate Persons, they pay a lower tax rate than I do even though I undoubtedly make less earned income than mid-size corporations.
The separate shareholders pay a lower dividend tax rate than I do as well, though they may receive unlimited sums of passive income.
The actual unfairness is the blue states that have invested in their economies and thus become prosperous are supporting the red states that do not invest, and want an increasing share of federal dollars extracted from the blue states.
But I don't believe in belly aching. I believe in fixing the problem assertively, proactively and in such a way that Congress may regret the can of worms opened.
1
Getting rid of the student loan deduction and taxing grad students on the free tuition was too blatant an attack on education, so this attack on the funding sources is more subtle. The right wing seems to hate education just as they don't believe in facts.
13
How foolish, nobody is attacking education. Why should someone be paid in services and not taxed? If I barter tax is owed, being a grad student is not very different.
3
It would not be a bad idea to lower taxes in some of these states but this is more than an attack against Democrats. It's an attack on unions and the whole structure built up in Democratic states. Conservatives cannot stand the idea that teachers, janitors and government workers make a decent living. The Federal Tax code provides an opportunity to dismantle the remnants of power built up by workers. They have done it in the private sector now there is a full scale assault on the public sector.
Perhaps this can be an opportunity in blue states to be inventive, we really need to get beyond the conservative-liberal paradigm, it's so 20th century.
13
Trump’s populist campaign for office included a promise to rebuild America’s infrastructure, but the Republican tax law he just signed punishes every state that has acted responsibly to address infrastructure needs locally through bonds and direct taxation. Trump’s hypocrisy and deceit is matched by the Republican majority in Congress. Their taxation attack on the states in the union with the strongest economies will weaken the nation competitively in global markets as well as at home. The real and pressing problems of our decaying public infrastructure, mankind’s negative impact on the environment, the poor performance of America’s K-12 educational system, and the changing nature of work all go unaddressed and unnoticed.
12
I live in CT, a high-tax state. Our roads are falling to pieces because we have a $55 billion (with a "B") unfunded pension liability in a state with 3 million residents. Do the math... okay, I'll do it for you. It's over $18,000 pp. Unfunded. We have recurring deficits of $4 billion a year as far as the eye can see. So tell me again how living in this liberal utopia is living in a state that has acted "responsibly". We have state police who make $300,000 a year. We have UCONN professors pulling down twice that. None of that improves quality of life for anyone and there's no reason the feds should subsidize it.
6
Exactly right.
How the new tax bill will cut infrastructure investment
Concluding paragraph:
"The tax bill will serve to increase the cost of infrastructure projects, slowing down the investments that President Trump says he wants more of. It will have the opposite impact of the Build America Bond program, enacted in the first year of the Obama Administration, which
lowered the cost of municipal debt and helped stimulate greater investment in infrastructure."
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/12/26/how-the-new-tax-bill-...
Infrastructure investment will be also be cut more directly, as spending for transportation funding etc. suffers from soon to be enacted budget cuts in the name of "shrinking deficits".
Pretty simple. Cut your state and local taxes and reap the benefits. This is a great wake-up for liberals....
6
Be like Nevada. 49th in education. Super idea westernlands.
11
Douglas, I'm a professor at a top 30 university. Tax money is wasted on U's, for the most part. I hate to tell you, but universities and colleges are a racket...
The results can be seen all around us.
Most visibly: the idiots on cable TV who have been graduated from Universities...
4
Nevada ranks 49th in K-12, professor at a top 30 university.
I remain convinced, based on my review of reliable tax policy analysis, that a significant reason for high taxes in the states constantly criticized for their tax and spending, is that these states receive a disproportionately low return of taxes paid from the federal government. Low tax states receive a disproportionately higher return of their tax dollars. These federal dollars are then used to pay for schools, public transportation, healthcare, etc. I agree there are spending matters that have to be addressed, but let's not be blind to how federal dollars are distributed and used in state operating budgets.
16
Got any figures? Sure Medicaid is a factor, around here we might like to do without it, and block grants should address this. Roads are interstates mostly, and you should eliminate a lot of grants from say the education department when you eliminate it.
Barry, our federal tax system is built on the idea that higher income families pay more. Our federal benefit system is based on the idea that lower income families get more. Are you OK with this?
Blue states include some of the highest median and mean family incomes, and will pay higher taxes. Red states include some of the lowest incomes, and will get more. Much of the bias in the state-by-state return on federal tax dollars is simple demographics, not an evil plan.
1
This is weird. Democrats love to tell us that rich must pay their fair share - and yet they are now trying to create loopholes for the rich people, to protect them from paying their fair share to the federal government.
I hope NYT will call the liberals out in this handout to the millionaires and billionaires.
8
Speaking of handouts, Oregon, takes about $1.30 for every federal dollar it contributes, whereas New York and California are net contributors, even with their previous deductions for state and local taxes, which, btw, are paid by everyone in those states, not just the "rich."
4
Uh, this hits the middle class in those states.
1
The usual phonies are telling the usual lies. The Republicans just gave the rich huge tax breaks. For the vast majority, the cuts in their income, investment and inheritance taxes far exceed the loss of the property tax deduction. The tax bill hits middle to upper middle class families in high property-value, high-tax states. If you were truly concerned about the rich paying their fair share, you would be singing an altogether different tune.
It is wholly immoral of the majority currently running the federal government to operate in ignorance of real human need and make massive spending adjustments and then "see what happens." This gradeschool level paradigm towards the lives of a struggling citizenry reminds me of when George W. Bush, operating out of the same mindset said -- regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict -- "sometimes a show of force can really clarify things."
Instead of insight though, what this attitude instead clarifies is that the minds of our leaders are filled with notions of nation and culture as an unending war of brutal survivalism. And these notions, enacted as public policy, directly create in the tangible world the brutalizing warlike conditions entrenched in their own minds.
Anyone who doubts the truth of what I'm saying need only measure the value of the dividend reaped from the "show of force" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trillions of dollars, desperately needed at home for real human need burned in a gargantuan, violent, flaming mostly Republican pyre upon the alter of the ranting third-grade paradigm of "let's try something and see what happens."
And to what end? So that a bunch of rich, global corporatists and oligarchs can settle gently into transgenerational luxury while their bulldozers shove protestors off the edge of the world.
The coming revolution will be incarnated by loving, clear thinking people whose end goal is peace on earth, and good will toward all.
4
The federal government is not designed to meet your needs, it is to meet its constitutional requirements. Without that stupid common good is whatever the congress votes for (and can garner votes) the federal government would be smaller and focused on its real constitutional responsibilities.
1
A civil society is more expensive than tribal barbareism. We all know that. It is only some of us who want the low road.
3
It is??? I always was told that civil society was much more valuable, and we don't have tribal barbarianism here, that would be say Afghans or in Africa.
@Steve Struck has his accounting wrong. High tax states do not necessarily have higher rates of taxation. As in the case of California, homes are more expensive and incomes higher among the middle class. As such, with rates comparable to other states, we nevertheless pay more in SALT. Also, whereas it is trendy to characterize CA as fiscally out of balance, in fact, our economy is growing at a faster pace than the rest of the country. We pay more to the Fed than we receive and our state budget is balanced.
10
I would like to see a boycott of products and services from states that the Republican Leadership are from. Nothing from Wisconsin, Idaho, Utah to name a few. They declared war on NY, NJ and CA. It's time we get back. I also expect a building inspector in a Trump building everyday of the week.
5
Go for the first, the latter is unconstitutional and I bet would find nothing. Please remember to boycott any energy that does not come from your state, good luck being very cold.
2
I am the "rich" person who will now pay higher taxes mainly because of no more SALT deductions. So I now am paying my "fair share", no? Why are blue state governments crying? The rich will now pay more, which is what Democrats always wanted, and now they have it. So end of story, right?
Of course, by the by, since we are now carrying a higher tax burden than the vast majority of other citizens, we might start looking at state and local taxes. Is that what the blue state hypocrites ... er, sorry, politicians ... are afraid of?
7
Wait the first answer NJ has to a tax bill giving away billions to income millionaires is to not implement a planned tax on said income millionaires? Your Democratic Party in action.
2
New York is an extremely blue state and if you are looking for freebies you should move here. Bill DeBlasio had his re-inauguration address today with Bernie Sanders swearing him in. His re-election numbers were some of the lowest in recent memory. These two men are the most liberal politicians you will find in the country. They want to increase taxes to the maximum and increase social services more than almost every state except California. They do not represent middle America and would never be elected to higher office. They want hard working Americans to pay for these services without getting anything in return. This is why Democrars are not popular with the people and keep losing elections. They just never learn from their mistakes.
3
" This is why Democrars are not popular with the people and keep losing elections."
Ever hear of Gerrymandering? That is how republicans, who are not popular, rig elections so they win.
Trump lost by 3,000,000 ballots but Republicans appointed him to the oval office anyway !
Obama was elected, in part, to chose the next vacant supreme court seat.
republicans robbed Merrick Garland of that seat and appointed their crony, Gorsuch. republicans don't win, they steal from democrats.
2
Herein lies the problem in the "logic" of social Darwinists/Libertarians/Republicans: "Our governments are money junkies that think they can spend other people's money better;" they think that "government" is an external entity. Our government, in constrast to say, Russia's, is "of, for and by the people." They argue out of both sides of their mouths that our money should remain with us individuals, but demand that the federal government should get a bigger share of states' taxes because they obeject to states doing what they need to do in order to maintain a functioning society with education, infrastructure and services, while also demanding states' rights, while also demanding that the federal government limit things like women's health care and freedom from religion. How do you guys not get dizzy with so much logic?
6
No, small government fans suggest that the feds should get by with minimum taxes, and the states, too. Your logic seems to be that you support lavish federal spending, but don't want to put in your share because you support lavish state spending as well.
4
Great, I can move to Alabama and enjoy their low taxes, but do I have to live in Alabama? Can I still live in Minnesota or California, or New York?
There’s no low tax that will make me move to Alabama.
13
Good for you, perhaps you don't know low tax states very well? You could perhaps live in Austin Tx.
the third paragraph from the end with this statement "Democratic party long term agenda..." hey neither party denies the right of the government to raise revenues. but one party is trying to make the united former states of kansas try nation wide. really not a good idea with regards to any future. maybe this will help with the poor coal diggers.
1
These high tax states have highly inefficient local governance. The number of municipalities are ridiculous. Look at Absecon Island in NJ. Three towns in Ventnor, Margate, Longport each have their own government, police, fire. And their non-summer time populations run approx 5,000-8,000 residents. A consolidation would dramatically reduce inefficiencies and reduce costs. Look at Voorhees NJ where the corruption is high...
5
Consolidation reduces costs, which are also known as jobs.
Maybe Ambler should be combined with Philadelphia, to eliminate government. Smh
The rash of "independent" state movements (independent California, independent Texas, etc.) have been shown to have ties to Russia. The tax bill punishes particular states in a way that would encourage more feelings of separateness— is this the GOP officially joining the efforts of Putin and the Russian deep state to destroy the United States of America?
2
Well Gee the last time states tried to leave it did not work out too well for them. Texas could be five states if they wanted to. And no Republican is doing any such thing nor working with Russia either, that would be say Bill Clinton getting paid.
1
Time to get rid of every Republican congressman/woman from these states. The Republicans have targeted us; let's return the favor. They can move to Kansas, the epitome of what they stand for.
19
There is a lot of discussion regarding who does and does not get a tax break under this bill. Something that I find to be missing in the Republican tax overhaul is what we actually get for our money, either paying more or less. I live in a blue state. I pay more taxes than say, an Oklahoman. But I get a great deal in return for my money. My state works for clean air and water. For police. For our amazing fireman. For better education. For nicer roads, beaches, parks. I live in a beautiful city where there is value placed on quality of life. I pay more for it because I care about these things. I do not want to be an Oklahoman. More importantly I do not want to pay more to live like one. People in red states are angry about taxes because they are not getting a better quality of life with their payments. Perhaps instead of decrying taxes, and hating on blue states, they should demand more for their money from their representatives.
20
I live in one of those states, I like it much more than say NYC or Chicago, or any of your high tax big city states. Give me Nashville if I wanted a decent sized city. You might find it nice as well.
1
AE, good for you. You want California to provide lots of things, and you are happy to pay higher taxes to support them.
But that choice does not eliminate the tax obligation you have to the federal government. Simple.
1
If and when does taxation become a penalty to the detriment of certain states and in favor of other states for this type of deduction, especially when de facto, these higher taxed states receive less back than the recipient states receive back more than they are taxed?
Further, when does taxation become a penalty when the huge majority of the average population are subject to increased taxes, when the wealthiest 1% or less, in the US have their taxes specifically lowered, and further when special interests continually receive tax loopholes?
Finally, what is the propriety of those Congressmen/women and Senators who receive financial patronage funds from the 1% or less receiving those benefits.
Are we in the process of becoming a country, like others running with a kleptocratic, authoritarian plutocracy?
The majority of us have never sanctioned that. Finally, the anachronistic electoral college needs to be eliminated.
8
The higher-taxed blue states are the economic engines of the US economy. They have long been sending well more to the federal government, than they are getting back. Conversely, most of the red states get much more back than they sent to Washington in taxes.
The new tax law perversely targets and harms the most productive economies in the US. Its essentially welfare for the red states, paid by the most productive blue states.
24
Most productive of what??? Large banks and Wall street? Here we make car parts, grow cotton, provide transformer parts, and many other manufactured goods which you would not want to do without. Not to mention say oil and coal.
2
Really? What does Tennessee make? Moonshine and tobacco and maybe a few soybeans and a bale of cotton on the side.
After reading the coments to my post i doubt that the contributors, if they read the article, thought very much about its contents. I don’t see any challenge to the facts stated or it’s conclusions . Stop spouting the same opinions and allow some new information into your thinking.
A scramble to close the barn door after the horse has left.
a little theatre to give them something to point to in the next election. In the late 1990s, when President Clinton, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Schumer cast their lot with the financial services industry, tacit acceptance of the fraud of the "carried interest", repeal of Glass Steegel, overriding state usury laws, etc. their fate was sealed. They gave up solid economic concerns and adopted their own form of Republican "voodoo". That's why the resistance to this con game otherwise called "tax reform" was so weak.
2
What the Dems did for the financial services industry is chump change compared to the recent Republican tax law. I guess the fact that EVERY Democrat opposed the law is a sign of weak resistance.
4
No it is a sign of a party that has severe limits on its members. You see Republicans that have a variety of views and feel free to express them. No tolerance among Dems.
In other news, Bill de Blasio receives a $33k pay raise.
Please, New Yorkers, shut up about your taxes going up.
8
De Blasio is the Mayor of 10,000 people and the operation and care of billions of dollars of programs and infrastructure. Probably more than most CEO's of fortune 500 companies. If you look at their salaries and annual bonus's it pales in comparison.
NYT, you are so lazy. You are not doing your job, you are a big reason why Trump and the GOP have been normalized.
Question, if I called a representative in NY let's say Chris Collins who voted for the tax scam and told Chris I have a big donation for his future campaign if he votes a certain way and he ends up doing it...would I be arrested for pay to play, isn't that a bribe? Vote for this and I will get you the money you need.
Nov 7, 2017 · "My donors are basically saying, 'Get it done or don't ever call me again'," Republican Rep. Chris Collins of New York said Tuesday. This should be on the front page of the NYT. Chris Collins runs a pay to play scheme. I want to see the NYT ask NYS attorney general Eric Schneiderman if he is investigating Chris Collins on this pay to play scheme. What happened to digging and reporting? Here we have a member of the House of Representatives stating on camera that he will vote for this tax scam that his donors want in return for money. Please look I to this asap!!!!!!
10
Those "pesky facts" just keep undermining liberal talking points on taxation. Here are some examples:
-- Many so-called "Red States" (dominated by the GOP in state legislatures) are also net donors on the federal level, which means they send more money to Washington than they get back. Examples include Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa.
-- According to the latest FTA study, the three counties in all of America with the highest property tax burdens are all located in New Jersey. Those localities voted in sky high taxes long before Trump took office.
-- The (prior) unlimited deduction for State and Local Taxes (SALT) was a decades-long tax dodge used by upper-income people in high tax states to shift the federal tax burden onot lower-tax states. That's true "taxation without representation."
Rich people of high-taxing states: The scam is over. You lost. Deal with it!
4
Everyone in the high tax states is affected by this law including middle income and low income people. It is an obvious attack on states that did not vote for Trump.
2
I'm not liking this bipartisan world. It stinks. I feel like the train has been hijacked by competing gangsters and both sides keep taking hostages as they continue their running gun battles with no clear end (except potential complete annihilation) in sight.
I'd like to get off this train but that's not a real prospect. It's the Solar System Express. Also called planet Earth. It goes straight through. It starts at life and ends at death. There are no stopping points in-between.
Each gang claims that they've got the answers.
One promises that it's all there waiting for you in the afterlife. Got a problem with a degrading environment and an impending Sixth Extinction? No worries! Jesus is just around the corner.
The other is less specific but councils patience.
I'm not too big on the "afterlife" and my patience is running pretty thin right now.
In a court of law these folks could be prosecuted for kidnapping, mental cruelty, and physical endangerment. However, right now, they're making all the judicial appointments and they keep rotating the Sheriff between them.
4
The big spenders running these (few) blue states are robbing their citizens of every dime possible, so these geniuses are going to have to scale back their dreams of power and control over the private citizens - for now.
I forecast a crushing round of new taxes on the private businesses in these states. This will lead to even more people bailing on the progressive states.
Illinois was already losing a family fer hour over the past year. This will accelerate this and eventually cost the high-tax states some electoral votes.
4
Interestingly, the citizens of those states keep reelecting those public officials, so maybe they like what they are getting and don't agree at all with your assessment from Fair Verona.
Is that as likely as Pres. Trump being credited by the Times for the booming economy?
You neglect to state that the only effects RICH Democrats. It is one of the few good things in the tax bill. We should completely abolish property tax deductions (which go to give rich people better schools) and the MID. Both ae an actual tax on the 45% of people who rent, whose landlords get to deduct their higher property taxes as a business expense, and then pass them on as increased rent. Renters are the biggest permanent underclass.
2
Rich? You are truly delusional or deeply misinformed if this is what you believe. So this article provides an example of a family with a $30,000 state tax burden. Many of us are not even in that ballpark but stand to see significantly increased federal taxes, including the deeply unreasonable situation where we will be paying taxes on our taxes. Your solution to higher rents is to increase expenses for everyone?
4
CK you are absolutely wrong. I live in NY, my home value is assessed at $330,000 and my taxes are $14,000. I am not rich. I use my tax refund for work on my home. Other middle class people like me use it for the same reason, or to pay credit cards, or to take a family vacation, to pay for medical bills, so on. That money goes right back into the economy. Not everyone in NY is rich, but taxes are high for all of us.
1
With the standard deduction doubling, this only hurts the upper middle class and above in high tax, rich states. These high tax states regularly call for the tax system to be more re-distributive; the elimination of this deduction and the doubling of the standard deduction makes this measure re-distributive. Forgive me if I shed few tears for the people who will pay more.
.
This is a measure aimed to unfairly penalize high tax blue states only to the extent that the original deduction was a measure aimed to unfairly reward blue states by the Democrats who controlled the House for decades in the 20th century. There is no moral or ethical justification that somehow those who live in high tax states should pay less in federal taxes, at the expense of those states that pay less at the state level. Decisions on federal and state taxation levels are made in separate legislative processes, and should be independent. The federal deduction was a reward for states that raised taxes -- a clear violation of the spirit of federalism, where states should be making their own tax and spending decisions based on their own priorities.
.
There's a lot that is wrong with the Republican tax plan, but the elimination of the state tax deduction, and the reduction of the mortgage tax deduction, are two very positive steps forward. I hope future governments will push further to eliminate both completely.
2
Fair enough, but then I don’t want my federal tax dollars bailing out people in Texas and Florida for their inadequate regulation, poor land planning, and unsustainable development policies that amplify the cost of recovery from every hurricane and oil spill.
Besides, even with the write-offs enjoyed in high tax (mostly ‘blue’) regions we were still getting back much less than we payed out in taxes. For all the red state talk of independence, states’ rights, and being self-sufficient, it’s pretty annoying to see that - for the most part - they are on the dole.
10
There's a simple moral/ethical justification for deducting state taxes: avoiding double taxation. The taxes are deducted from income, not from taxes (the latter would be excessive and clearly trigger some perverse incentives) -- so if I make $200k, and pay $10k in state taxes, I pay federal taxes on $190k -- which was my take-home income after state taxes. I shouldn't have to pay taxes on the $10k which I didn't actually receive.
Property taxes are a different matter. I benefit from this (my property tax alone is over $10k); but I think the system as a whole distorts property prices in a way that's not ideal. I'm more willing to accept changes to property taxes, despite the fact than it's no in my personal interest.
I don't mind the idea of redistributive taxes -- but I care how it's redistributed.
If (mostly blue) states with high SALT taxes were on average contributing less than they received from the federal government relative to those with low SALT taxes, you might have a valid argument that deductions fueled perverse incentives which benefited those states at the expense of other (mostly red) states. Since such (mostly blue) states are actually sending more to the federal government than average, there's no justification for making tax policy changes designed to increase their relative contributions even farther above the average.
States should have the ability to experiment with different models, including higher taxes/higher service models.
It seems the logical way to determine the state-by-state disparity in federal taxes paid is to look at federal taxes per capita. Check out this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state. Residents of New York state pay $13,659 per capita in federal taxes, while residents of Florida pay $8,762. Residents of New Jersey pay $17,226 per capita, while residents of Alaska pay $5,717,640. New York and New Jersey have state income taxes, while Florida and Alaska do not. From these figures, I don't see how you can possibly argue that taxpayers in Florida and Alaska are unfairly paying more in federal taxes than those in New York and New Jersey.
If businesses game governments on taxesand this gaming is encouraged by the way our laws work, why shouldnt governments game each other? They already game each other on attracting industry and wealthy taxpayers, getting poor and sick people to move elsewhere, and getting others to pay for services they know are necessary. All this is competition, and competition is supposedly what makes our economy work.
OK, so this tax bill is supposed to benefit the wealthy. If you pay more than $10,000 in SALT and have a mortgage in excess of $750,000 you pretty much fit the definition of a wealthy person - the kind of person most likely to benefit from the tax cuts (according to Democrats). Why do Democrats in blue state rush to help these people? Shouldn't they be thinking: "Now that the wealthy have more money so we should increase their taxes in blue states where we have total control!"?
1
There is a strong correlation between high cost of living, high taxes and prosperity.
3
No. A $750,000 mortgage is not only held by the wealthy. Where do commentators such as yourself get this idea? Do some real world research. What you think is wealthy may be struggling middle class in many places in this country. That you are unaware of this is not to your credit.
1
These states that have high state tax need to self reflect on why their taxes are so high yet they don’t use the revenues in a positive way for the people. These same states have the highest levels of homelessness yet they do little to get these people off the street and back into meaningful employment. They just want the money and they want it subsidized by the federal govt.
2
The operative though here is the taking back of Congress or rather the defeat of as many Republicans as possible, especially in the states impacted by this new tax grab by envious red states that have neither the services nor infrastructure that is part of the benefit of living in a high tax state. You get what you pay for, and I don't particularly see myself driving down to the county dump twice a week to drop off my garbage, or having to put up with poor cable and internet service because it's not profitable for an ISP provider to build out the support needed. I like my culture reachable by subway, not pickup truck, and my dining choices not limited to fast food chains along Route "where the hell am I ?" Yes I'm being a bit over the top here but to get my point across. The high tax states send more money to the low tax states then they ever see in return. This should end now. If, as I do, have a Republican congressman representing your district, vote them out of office even if he voted against the tax bill. He was given shade by the GOP to do this to help protect his seat. Don't be fooled. He or she is no friend of yours. Make sure the GOP in 2018 reaps the consequences of its war on America. Make no mistake - the ordinary constituent does not matter, only those that donate to their cause. Take the message to heart -Make America Great Again - by taking it back from the scoundrels that inhabit the Congress, and ultimately the White House.
14
I want services too. But, the excessive tax dollars I have to pay as a resident in Connecticut mainly go to out sized pensions, exorbitant union wages and a bloated state workforce. The roads and bridges are crumbling, the traffic jams are epic and public transportation is sorely lacking. The court system is hopelessly clogged, services like the DMV are comically bad along with other essential state services. I want the priorities straightened out so if this is what it takes, i.e., I pay even more, then it's okay for the short term. If things don't show signs of changing soon, then residency in a low tax state for 6 months is a reasonable solution.
2
Could not have been said better. The old red Confederate states love to blather on about taxes, but so right they are leeches that don't pay their own way not even close. Time to stop giving them our hard earned money see how they enjoy it. Jim Trautman
2
My question would be is who's judgement is it how much is enough or too little. Yes there are problems and inequities but then the people are supposed to keep their collective eye on elected officials. Neglect your kids and they get out of hand as well. Living is a dynamic exercise and what worked yesterday may not work today. I guarantee that a move to "cheaper state will yield similar issues but on a smaller scale. If you think that double wide down a dirt road in rural Georgia is a solution then go for it. Once it stops feeling like an idyllic vacation getaway you may have second thoughts about what you left behind. But you will see close up what you paid for.
1
Jeff Bezos - whatever you do, please do not reward any deep red state with a new Amazon headquarters. The GOP does not deserve your support, as they don't have citizen's best interests in mind.
21
Jeff, People in America want to work. They're dying to work. They don't want guarantees. They want a chance. And they don't think that they're red or blue...Hard workers. Not complainers...
2
In fact many middle class tax payers already pay income tax based on AMT without any benefit of property tax, state income tax and personal exemptions. AMT rate is 26% when regular tax would be much less. The new tax bill will help many middle class people who pay AMT by increasing deduction for AMT and reducing regular tax rate. The middle class people who use standard deduction and have children will be paying a lot less tax under the new bill. The middle class people who itemize and whose deductions are capped at $10,000 will benefit from 3-4% rate reduction. Most of the people who will be paying additional tax under the new bill are people with high property tax and high state tax and they cannot be considered middle class. They are rich. So, Democrats should be happy and should have supported the bill.
2
It would be gratifying if NY State found a way to bar Trump from reoccupying space in NY as payback for this atrocity.
6
Grover Norquist’s coup “drown government in the bath tub”! The corporations have won!
3
Or you could do what Americans have done from the beginning: move to a place that’s better for you.
2
So I should move from one of the most prosperous, diverse, energetic, highly educated and functional States to Kansas or Mississippi? I have a better idea - vote the scoundrels out of office.
4
You can do what you want to do, and you can get what you want to get. But unless you are fabulously lucky (privileged) you can't do both at the same time. Real people make sacrifices for what they want. By choosing to restrict yourself to very-high-cost-of-living regions, you are sacrificing things that people in other areas enjoy. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't leave you any room to complain about the outcomes of your choices.
If a state allows charitable contributions to that state to offset state income tax liabilities, what’s to stop Congress from removing the deductibility of such contributions? Same thing for payroll taxes. Duh, if Congress wants to screw states again it can, as they have proven.
1
In fact, the new law does impact charitable deductions at both the state and federal levels.
2
“Our first line of defense,” Mr. Barnes, the Connecticut official, said, “is to take back Congress for Democrats.”
Even that wouldn't do it, at least for the next three years. Trump would simply veto any Democratic tax code revisions he didn't like.
9
It's a start and we must start somewhere!
Why do so many Red State residents hate the Blue States? The Red States contribute to the prosperity of the USA in many ways and so do the Blue States. The many institutes of higher learning in the Blue States immeasurably contribute by, for example, by their excellent medical schools. Don't Red State residents benefit from the chemists who develop new medicines to combat diseases or the doctors who are trained to operate using cutting edge techniques? Or the engineers who invent or design objects or machines or bridges that we use everyday? Or the media companies that produce television shows or magazines ranging from People to the Atlantic (although I'm not sure Washington D.C. is a Red or Blue State but originally the Atlantic Monthly was from Boston). The Red States contribute too through their schools and in other ways that do not require higher learning but blue collar jobs which are also essential to our way of life. So please Red State people, stop demonizing Blue States because you also benefit from our culture. Lastly, just to explain, Blue States are angry with the Red States because your votes are now helping to destroy our environment and a whole lot more.
9
Blue states always support Red states due to their high taxes, good jobs and good education. Who is going to keep Red states afloat now?????
1
The people in the states that elected Trump do not hate anyone. They enjoy the freedom of lower taxes and more to spend on their families - PLUS, they get to sit back and enjoy the tawdry show as the progressive leaders in Congress do their ''wah-wah'' while media personnel brag about what fine leaders Pelosi and Schumer are (without mentioning their old age.)
The state and local tax break was a rip-off used to sell higher federal taxes. It is past time to completely do away with this deduction so that voters get to see just how badly their little socialists in Albany NY and Springfield IL are running the blue states into the ground.
3
I don't think red states "hate" blue states. They just don't appreciate the contempt and disdain elitists in blue states hold them in.
3
The Pavlovian-style love Americans have for tax minimization displays the national stupidity like nothing else. Throw the people a few dollars in reduced taxes and the scions can then gut 10x as much in public spending -- on everything from roads, air/water measures, and health care. By the time the tax-haters wake up and realize they've been had once again, they're ready for the 'big bonus' from the next 'tax cut'.
So ... watch your Medicare and your Social Security dwindle, in order to pay for these 'cuts', and to keep the consumer reality buzzing.
6
As a resident of a net contributor state - California is a net donor state, as per the Tax Foundation noting California only receives $0.78 back for each $1.00 sent - the present tax legislation seemed clearly designed to punish wealthy "blue" states who saw the table tilted towards those who are net consumer states; pretty much all the red states who vote for Republicans and morons like Trump. Yes, this galls me!
But California is the world's 6th or 7th (depending on which statistics you use) economy in the world. My suggestion to Sacramento is to effectively punish those red states by cutting our own international trade and climate deals with the rest of the world, while Trump and company try to extract their collective heads from their large intestinal track. It's all about money, so why not punish the idiots who put together this stupid tax legislation?
Imagine if states like Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut, Washington, and second tier blue states decided to craft their own economic trade policies and trade zones. Imagine if the residents of these power house blue states decided they would only send tax revenue back to DC in a net zero (neither donor, nor taker) position.
Republicans must be grabbed by the throat and shook into their senses when it comes to appreciating this is the United States of America. If you punish people and states who make the economy grow, then you don't deserve to be in office. 2018: year to clean House & Senate
29
''Grabbed by the throat!''??
Such violent talk! No wonder your politics aren't wining.
2
Yes!
2
Red States that can't carry their own weight have been parasites on the Blue States since before the Civil War. They've been greedily taking continuous handouts for so long they've become addicts and think it's okay to bite the hand that's been feeding them.
Time to cut these ungrateful losers off cold. I am in favor of the Blue States succeeding from the Red States. Not only do we not need them, they've been holding us back for 150 years. Give 'em the boot.
14
Charitable Contributions have to be voluntary. I do not see how Cuomo's scheme to have residents give NYS $10,000 in exchange for a lower income tax is legal.
3
You have blue state public sector unions writing retirement contracts that will have to be paid off by their children. And grandchildren.
I have a friend that retired at 50 with 30 years of service, and now double dips.
He is just short of the twenty needed for his second pension.
Never seen a happier guy.
9
California spends billions supporting illegal immigrants. Perhaps our taxes would be better spent for the benefit of legal residents.
17
That's wrong. You need to check your facts because when you parrot your alt-truth media talking points (designed by the ultra-rich to program soft minds) you are just contributing to mass stupidity.
Actually, illegal immigrants (not to mention the legal immigrants) contribute Many Billions More into the country than are spent on them. And that's a fact.
California spends billions of tax dollars on medical care for illegal immigrants: http://www.sacbee.com/news/article189648569.html
Bad idea, and 150 years too late:
"Calexit. It’s time for my wonderful state of California to leave this mess of a Union."
The Southern states argued before (and during) the Civil War that they had a right to secede. The North disagreed, and the North won that War.
Nevertheless, if CA wanted to secede from the Union, I think the reaction of most Americans would be "Don't let the door hit you on the way out." Without CA's electoral-college votes and popular votes for Clinton, Trump would have won in a landslide.
If CA could seceded (it can't -- see above), and did, that would put great pressure on other "blue states" to secede too. I seriously doubt NY, NJ and CT, for example, would escape punishment of one form or another. So we'd be left with one "coastal" country and a second country consisting of all the other states.
CA residents can fantasize about this all they want, and anyone can offer reasons why it would be better or worse. But it isn't going to happen, and it's irresponsible even to suggest this as a "solution."
4
Lots of ways to cut local and state budgets. Start with no school or benefits for illegal aliens. Next outsource prisons to Mexico. No government employee should make more than $100K - even in high cost markets.
On the federal level make our deadbeat "allies" e.g. dependents pay for the defense we have been providing for them for decades. Guess Europeans will have to give up cradle to grave healthcare, six weeks vacation, one year maternity leave, retirement at 60. Not the US taxpayers' responsibility. Trump was right on this one.
7
The irony that the wealth redistribution Republicans have been screeching about as a signature bogeyman of the Obama era was in fact their ultimate goal all along--redistribute wealth from the middle to the oligarch class, and from prosperous blue to poor red states. What a surprise.
5
Ok. Trump got his law.
Now let’s see his taxes.
10
This sure is rich, with pun intended!
A fair tax concept: open up the tax paying base. One additional caveat as long as it's NIMBY!
One of the NYT picks actually asserts that it's 'not about the percentage, it's about the actual number of dollars'
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE 1 PERCENTER!
This is only stinging wealthy people. The types that can afford to 'pre-pay' a whole year of salt tax in areas where the bills can be $50-90 thousand bucks a year...
Somehow they can come up with this liquid, in a few days? Hey, I'm glad it was cold outside while they were waiting on lines outside the local tax collector. Let em earn it!
5
We can cry all we want but fact is we would have been better off if our NJ Reps did their jobs and negotiated to get the 10K raised to 15K or 20K rather than fall in line with their leaders and resist rather than represent the people who actually vote them in.
2
NYS officials are hypocrites when they whine that the larger entity (the federal government) is "unfair" to limit deductions from the smaller component entity (the state) and that it constitutes illegal "double taxation". If Gov. Cuomo and the NYS legislature really believed this, why has New York never allowed ANY deductibility from NY State taxes for NY City income taxes paid by City residents? None of the legions of NYC complainers never before had a problem with this situation, even though it's much worse than the new federal law which allows $10K in deductibility. Suddenly however, it's a moral issue - NO DOUBLE TAXATION. Physician, heal thyself.
And why should state taxes be deductible from federal income any? Shouldn't it be the other way around, considering that the federal income tax is supposed to be a uniform national levy based on the income of the person, not where he/she lives? Deducting state taxes makes it a non-uniform levy where the amount of your federal tax is often determined as much by your state of residence as by your income.
5
But I thought rich Democrats and Blue State residents LOVED being taxed, and having their unnecessary wealth redistributed to the more worthy poor among us. Aren't these the very same people who hate the 1%'ers, who know better than hard working Americans as to how their money should be spent? Fair was supposed to be fair, wasn't it? Where did I go wrong? As long as I get my personal and business tax rates lowered, I want these social engineers of Progress to be hit, and hit as hard as they can be! It's long overdue.
7
David "where did I go wrong" -- where you went wrong is not your understanding that it's a legitimate question (which in my view it obviously is ) that you raise about whether or not it's good public policy to have state taxes deductible from federal taxable income, but rather in what it means when such a policy strongly aligns with the currently political interests of the governing party. In the likely event that the Democrats take back the House and Senate in 2018 and presidency in 2020, are you in favor of the them unleashing the same scorched earth public policy laws upon the red states (such as forcing them to come up with their own revenue and not currently be on the dole of the blue states?) We in the blue states don't ask (other than for compassionate analysis and policy planning) "why are you red states poor," we just send the money. Trump's attitude here is to "stick it to his political opponents," regardless of outcome. It's simply unethical.
3
snow. Or 6” it is closed for a week. Can you imagine NY State or NJs a week every time it snowed. Having all the snow removal equipment and full time 24/7 on call snow truck drivers. It is nor just your garbage truck drivers. Most of the South has privatized trash haulers so they can’t just call them in for snow removal either.
Then the biggest. The schools in most parts of the Midwest, and northeast are small one high school districts. With union teachers, who are paid well enough to live in the community they teach in. Principals teach for 20 years in the district then are promoted as are the Superintendents. Everyone in the community goes to the schools, from the garbage man, maids, to the doctors children through high school. Everyone supports their under 5,000 student district. In the Red states the schools are horrible with 100,000 student districts traveling “broad” supertendents, looking for higher $. Only 2-3 schools perform great they have white and Asian flight. But if Asian tops more than 10% whites leave. Teachers don’t stay. Students of the legislatures flee to Private schools that cost $25-30k in Atlanta. Crazy Christian schools for $10-15k will take the new vouchers. Otherwise you are stuck Homeschooling. I would rather pay double my taxes for for the school district I went to high school I went to in upstate NY.
Then their are sorts of advalorms for example the car tag tax first year I moved to Ga and it was $20O vs 20 fo a car tag.
1
You COULD have stayed up north....
The carnival barker rolled out just what you would expect for a tax plan when one is a grifter and gaslighter. I am sure he hasn't read a word of the plan.
5
Assuming he CAN read!
1
A simple solution for high tax states would be to lower their taxes. States like New York have high tax rates which could be cut if wasteful services were cut. Bill DeBlasio added free education to four year olds and now wants to include three year olds. If parents want to send their three and four year old children to school let them pay for it.
Many people are on the dole and get free government services that are needlessly paid by taxpayers who work hard for their money. Only the truly needy and deserving should be getting any assistance not those who are able to go out and get a job. New York is notorious for this free giveaway program which must come to an end. If you are healthy, go to work like the rest of us do. Cut out this wasteful spending and taxes will be lowered significantly.
President Trump was voted into office because he promised a tax deduction for most Americans and he has delivered. The Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders wanted to raise taxes on hard working Americans which did not go over well with the majority of people. They were seeing less and less take home pay and higher taxes. They were not the ones benefitting from the surplus social programs of Democrats and they had enough of this pork spending. The Democrats had better wake up to this fact or they will lose even more voters to the Republicans in 2018.
5
At least these states are trying to help their residents instead of ignoring them.
9
They are trying to help them from calling United Van Lines on a one-way journey to Florida
3
It’s interesting that the conservatives always argue that states should be responsible for as much as possible in their states, but then when federal elected officials don’t like what particular states are doing, they figure out a way to penalize them.
Taxation isn’t the only issue. Look at how the District of Columbia is treated with respect to its gun laws, or how Californis treated on some public lands issues.
11
I've never thought it fair that those in states without state income tax, were able to write off sales tax. They provide few services to their residents and let the federal government pick up the shortfall.
14
Oh, those states get plenty of tax money. It's collected from higher car registration fees, real estate taxes, and the sales tax you mentioned. The wonder of our country is that we have states in competition with each other. You spell that ''freedom.''
We could just run all these levels of government off of sales taxes and relieve people and companies of maybe half a trillion in accounting costs every year. Imagine THAT money put to work on streets & schools.
Stop crying about the cap on deductions. The cap applies to all fifty states, so the liberals always cry about fairness, and now they have it. If you live in a high tax state, all run by Democrats (I know, Illinois has a Republican governor. It's the legislatures in all those states that are Democrat with a Democrat governor.), vote Republican and try to get your taxes cut that way and get a legislature that will fight the public unions like Wisconsin did. You can go so far as to kick out the entrenched Republicans as well. They are getting fat off the pensions they have got for themselves.
7
Higher taxes and more regulations didn't stop Aetna from moving it's CEO and 100 of his closest cronies to Manhattan, or GE to Boston.
10
Democrats should campaign on repealing this onerous tax bill.
15
To even begin to lose some federal income tax deduction in California one must earn $107500. All earning less are not affected, and in fact will see a federal tax reduction. Heck under Obama anyone earning more that $100 k was considered a millionaire.
5
Pure and simple , this is all about revenge and greed from the Republicans , the lackeys of the corporations and the1%. They have convinced a segment of the population in this country that high tax states support the deadbeats on welfare but close their eyes to the biggest benefactors (corporate welfare) meanspirited to those that struggle to live in those states . Not everyone desires or wants to live in Alabama or Kansas . Maybe we should also consider making the Don (who has refused to release his income taxes) and his cabinet pay for flying on air force one or government airplanes (Mnuchin , Pruitt ad nauseum) that should even out the playing field .
8
How is eliminating a tax deduction that only benefits those making >$100K all about greed and benefiting the 1%? Why are you so opposed to progressive taxation? Get your story straight, sm. Are you one of the few hurt by this progressive tax measure? If so, organize -- I suggest you call yourselves "Citizens united to support the upper middle class". Good luck with that.
1
Tom, You live in Ohio . 100K is not a lot of money in NY or these other states maybe in Ohio. My story is straight and no need for caustic comments , people live in these states for a reason ie: better schools for their kids , jobs , family , many other reasons . No need to get personal it sounds bitter on your part.
1
The vitriol from progressive Democrats aimed at Red States is disappointing. They see rural America as freeloaders who cling to their guns and Bibles. Their contempt leads them to open all borders to wave in any immigrant in order to spite their fellow Americans. The want progressivity in their tax system, but now chafe at it post the SALT reduction. Why do people in Blue States pay more in to the Federal govt and get less back? It's because of progressive taxation and because the 1% predominantly live in Blue States. Many commenters are espousing regressive taxation, insisting Red States only get back what they put in to the Federal government. Puerto Rico is the poster child for Fed govt handouts. What will Mayor Carmen Cruz do when Democrats insist Puerto Rico pay in as much as they get? Democrats have a warped sense of how much Blue States get vs. Red States. They run around clamoring for taxes on the 1%, and when they get them, they are outraged! Remember Democrats, you didn't build that! But good news, you can elect a wave of Democrats to raise taxes further in 2018. And they are all coming after the 1%, of course unless that is malarkey and they seek to raise the SALT caps which only affect the top 5% of taxpayers. So Gillibrand, Harris, Booker, Sanders, Warren, Biden and Hillary, what will it be in 2020! I'm guessing more taxes.
6
No, we see rural America as complicit in their own destruction by voting Republican, and undermining efforts to improve access to education, heath care, and jobs.
2
We might feel differently if the redistribution led to support for CHIP, universal health care, public infrastructure spending and a fair and just society. Instead, we're sending money to tax havens in Bermuda and gilded golf courses. First thing the GOP talked about upon passing tax reform was cuts to entitlements such as social security, the very programs those red states depend upon.
1
Maybe because blue state legislators were never consultedl in the hasty, secretive writing of this tax law? Ever heard of an old slogan, "No taxation without representation!" It applies here.
If you have investment property may you be able to move your mortgages there?
To think that Republicans are for taxing income that was paid in taxes is absurd, unless it were, as it is, killing two birds with one stick: 1) punitive economic measures against those they perceive are their opponents (or worse), and; 2) giving the money they take from their political enemies and giving directly to their political benefactors.
This is not a U.S. Congress. It is a crony Congress. And an embarrassment to the U.S. in front of the world.
5
Since we in the High-Tax States are the greatest losers with this new tax law, we can justifiably do something to help ourselves. Since our States are the ones paying $3 to the Federal Government and getting $1 in return, let us keep $2 for ourselves and give only $1 to the Federal just like other States who pay $1 and get $4 in return. I am no expert, no CPA and maybe what I'm suggesting is just hot air. But as a resident of New York, I am so mad, so enraged. We are already giving away $2 more in charity to the moocher states!
7
Your "high tax" states pay more to federal coffers than low tax states because those states have more rich people, not because the citizens are paying a higher proportion of their income in federal tax.
A good idea, especially since most of those taker states grabbing far more than they pay in are red states, which have been getting a free ride for years. Maybe the red states should just secede (again); they’d probably find far less resistance from the blue states this time around. Then red state voters can finally practice the self-sufficiency they are always preaching. For once.
2
You sound like a Conservative. The Feds are just redistributing the money "fairly."
As another commenter pointed out, "fair share" always seems to mean "someone else should pay higher taxes," NOT "I should pay higher taxes."
5
I agree with the elimination of the home mortgage interest deduction because it creates an unequal advantage for people who can afford to buy a house over those who can't and are thus forced to rent. It likely contributes to excessive inflation of real estate prices that prevent non-owners from entering the market.
On the other hand, I strongly disagree that any income should be taxed twice. State and local taxes should remain deductible at the Federal level precisely because many States choose not to impose income taxes. Double taxation would thus create an unequal advantage for their residents over those who reside in States which do impose income taxes.
It is also the case that States with no income tax tend to rely more heavily on Federal dollar inflows to fund their budgets than States which fund their budgets through State and local level taxation. It is the so called high tax States that provide the bulk of these Federal revenues to fund the no tax States. Talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
5
I hope that the "Blue States," hardest hit by this insane tax code will implement these ideas, as I ,as a middle class person in the arts is going to take a huge hit in taxes as well as the State tax change. I say, it is not only time to expand the congressional representation in Congress, it is TIME TO ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. I am tired of my vote not fully counting because I am in a high population area. One person, one vote, determines the Presidency. Percentage of votes in each State determines the States representatives, and increase the representation of the higher population areas.
5
Forget the EC. Repeal the 1920 rule setting House membership at 432. Thaat will fix the EC and ensure that every citizen's vote has the same weight in Congress. England, with a much smaller population, has 650 members in their house.
2
Sometime down the road, when the balance of power has shifted and the grown-ups are once again running things, steps must be taken to stop the kind of political malfeasance that resulted in the federal tax monstrosity that just passed.
Republicans have freely and publicly admitted that they crafted the tax bill to punish the blue states, which is grotesque. Blue states already support most of the red states through the federal taxes they already pay. To deliberately pass a tax bill designed to punish your political opponents is very Republican, but it is also completely un-American. Republican and un-American are practically synonymous at this point.
5
How many of you poor Americans pay $30000 in property taxes. I guess Democrats are not on the side of the poor guy anymore because this tax cuts help the lower middle class but they are upset for the rich not deducting their $30000 property tax
4
Talk about unfair.
The low tax states have actually been subsidizing the high tax states (for many. many years) by allowing them to offload their respective over-taxations into a reduction of federal taxes.
Which reductions then had to be pushed back onto the rest of the national taxpayers by higher taxes and debt. And allowing those profligate states to hide the real fiscal damage they have caused not only in their own states, but also across the nation as a whole.
4
You have it exactly backwards - residents of New York State paid the federal government $41 billion more than they got back last year alone. The same is true for most of the other blue states.
2
Steve,
The fairness, or lack thereof, of the redistribution of federal largesse has nothing to do with the federal income taxes "fairly" owed.
1
It's been very interesting to see the New York Times report on the reduction of itemised deductions (property taxes, mortgage interest, state taxes) -- something that raises taxes high earners (something liberals should undoubtedly agree with) is instead portrayed as ill considered and an overall negative.
Perhaps that's because many of the people who work at the New York Times and many of the people in their social circles have gotten used to writing off $20,000 a year property tax bills and $45,000 in mortgage interest?
5
Trump has declared he and his spawn won't benefit from this so-called tax reform bill. This is utter brazen lying. We have here the most massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the weathy in US history! By 2027 those earning annually $40-50,000 collectively will pay a total of $5.3 trillion MORE in taxes. While those earning more than a million annually will collectively pay a total of $5.7 trillion LESS in taxes. These are numbers certified by both the CB and the Joint Committee on Taxation. This is so outrageous that people should be up in arms.
7
if there was any consideration by Republicans in Congress that this law would target Democrats more than Republicans, it's an equal protection violation.
And for Democrats to hope for control solely to get even with Republicans, there's not enough substance there to motivate intelligent argument.
Do we need to be attacked by a hostile nation before we return to cooperation and compromise?
I take it that these states don't want to pay for their public services with help from the feds
1
At the end of the day, tampering with the SALT deduction was the dumbest thing that Republicans could have done. They have now antagonized millions of blue-state residents who will be even more energized to go to the polls and punish blue-state Republicans at the national, state, and local levels this November. Remember that turnout is everything in off-year elections. Republicans could well lose enough House seats at the hands of angry blue-state Democratic voters to shift the balance of power. All of this could have been avoided simply by forgoing another percentage point or two of the corporate tax cut and leaving the SALT deduction intact. They will live to regret this overreach.
7
How about if they cope by reducing state and local taxes? Of course California cares more about illegals so that might be difficult. Can they seriously think the courts woudn't throw out their "charity" option? "Charity" implies it's voluntary.
2
I am as much a bleeding-heart liberal as the typical NYT commenter. Definitely on the lower end of the income spectrum. (Yet) even I find it annoying (and more) that people are taxed on income that's already been taxed.
There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the removal of the deduction for SALT is a 100% punitive measure intended directly, explicitly (you name it) to punish political foes. I think this sets a terrible precedent.
What about taxing income that has already been spent on food, clothing, or shelter? Why should that expenditure be any less protected from taxation than income spent on local taxes? No tax deduction has any intrinsic logic (except deductions for business expenses - i.e. if you have to buy $100 worth of tomatoes wholesale in order to sell $120 worth of tomatoes retail, one can't be taxed on the $100, only on the $20 made in income.)
Tax cut for 0.1 % + Citizens United = Authoritarian Regime
1
If not for the Citizens United ruling it would be illegal for a corporation to publish a book or produce a movie with a political message. In fact, Hillary Clinton's book would be an illegal use of corporate funds. This is why the ruling was necessary. One can't have a democracy and prohibit investment in communications that have a political message (regardless of that moronic "corporations are not people" slogan).
1,What happens in the situation where income is not related to an employer? 2. Oregon we have no sales tax and state income comes from property taxes and income taxes. I either missed a analysis for this - or it has never been addressed in months of writing about the tax shifts
1
Here in the Bay area, "rich" people (who pay federal taxes that support people in red states) have struggled in the last few years to buy simple 3-4 bedroom 1950s style post WW2 ranch homes for $1 million-plus. They did so with the confidence that they could afford their homes due to the ability to deduct state and local taxes. Their only alternatives were to pay ridiculously high rents or live far from work and commute two hours each way to their jobs. The GOP seems to be taking an enormous amount of glee in the hardships these families will face, simply because they were more likely than people in other parts of the country to vote Democratic.
1
Like everything else, it always comes down to whose ox is being gored...
It's not the amount of tax that's important. IMHO, it's what the tax pays for. In Oregon our higher taxes pay for education, health care, state infrastructure maintenance, etc. I have no complaints nor resentments.
I do resent paying higher federal taxes that go to many "red" states that do not seem to believe that Jesus' "least of these brothers and sisters of mine" deserve the same as those with the most.
And, of course, there are the federal taxes that are basically subsidies for any "Big" entity, while the nation's infrastructure, education system, health care, etc. slowly circle the porcelain bowl. But, that may be another discussion...
14
There needs to be a low that say "no earnings shall be taxed twice by state, local or federal agencies". This basic premise should be separate from the question of who benefits because the brackets move up or down. It is just a matter of fairness. The problem, as others note, is that cost of living, earnings, and local social factors vary from state to state. Local taxation allows us to solve key problems at a local level first and that should make everyone happy. By double taxing our money, those in high tax states (like me) are treated totally differently from those in low tax states. Double taxation potentially paves the way for massive tax levels on some high earners, who will always be caught between the liberal state and the conservative federal mind sets. Even the relatively rich need some assurances that they won't be taxed beyond some sane upper limit. And now, some of us start worrying if anyone will give in and that all of the ideas in this article will fail, as it hints at towards the end. We fear that no one cares that you can make a darn good living and it is still tough when home prices are high, kids go to college, parents get sick, marriages fail, and taxes go through the roof. We fear the upper middle class will just turn into the football that gets kicked back and forth with no limits. And nationally, different rules for different locales is not a path to healing our partisan discord. It divides us.
2
Somehow I was taught that a tax on a tax is illegal. But I guess I was dreaming it.
1
High tax states provide more federal revenue than they take from the feds.
Conversely low tax states take more than they provide.
Maybe high tax states should stop subsidizing the moochers.
And, really, does NY or NJ want to race to the bottom just so they can brag about low tax rates? People don’t say, “Kansas, here I come.” They say, “California, here I come.” For a reason.
5
Why then, are people fleeing California, NY and Illinois? Thems is the facts.
1
A commenter from a high-tax state says he LIKES those high taxes:
"I happen to prefer living in a place with more taxes, more services..."
Great. Nobody's saying your state can't continue to have "more taxes, more services..." They're just saying you shouldn't deduct those taxes from your federal taxable income. When you do that, your federal taxes go down and everybody else's go up (or future generations bear the cost, if it just gets added to the national debt).
More taxes, more services -- that's a choice each state and locality can make, for itself. But state and locality CAN'T make that choice for OTHER states and localities.
Fair?
1
Federal taxes on CA, NY, NJ were decided by other states. Fair?
1
I really don't even want to be in the same country with red States anymore. The NE, and west coast can function fine as an independent nation.
22
Why should non tax states subsidize tax states?
5
because non tax states in general receive much more federal money than tax states.
10
If you look at statistics, you’ll find that the reverse is true: the high tax states already give much more to the federal government than they get back in return.
2
You have it backwards. It's the higher tax states that subsidize the lower tax states.
3
I have an idea to help the states mentioned in this article, tax Trump millions of dollars every time he visits Mar-A-Logo and plays golf and transfer these millions to these states. I'm sure this will more than offset the lose of these important deductions that we currently are allowed to take.
10
it seems to me that republicans are putting serious wedges into the glue that holds a country together, the only person who really desires that is Putin, weaponizing the tax code to pit one group of states against the other is not a recipe for longevity
22
"it seems to me that republicans are putting serious wedges into the glue that holds a country together, the only person who really desires that is Putin, weaponizing the tax code to pit one group of states against the other is not a recipe for longevity "
As usual. the progs have this backwards. This law removes the deduction that favors one State over another eliminating a tax law weapon.
It's OK, no reasonable person expects ignorant progs to understand this.
1
If it's a charitable donation then paying it is optional right?
4
There are many steps that blue states can take:
- adopt same gerrymandering rules as Texas and Wisconsin for example so that they maximize the democrats in congress and ensure they control it.
- when retake congress repeal the Republican tax cuts and increase the taxes on the rich while bringing back SALT deductions
- introduce indexing per cost of living: housing cost in CA are so much higher than housing cost in AL. The current tax code, just like our electoral system is skewed towards rural states/districts.
- above all, fight for equal distribution of federal spending. As it stands, blue states give more to federal government than they get back. AL, LA, WV... for every dollar they give to the federal government they get back 3 dollars, in the case of SC that is astonishing 7 dollars. There is no reason for red state to have state taxes, when they have blue states subsidizing their living standards through the federal government.
Democrats are going to have to become so much better at fighting this game, otherwise they will be perennial losers.
18
"There are many steps that blue states can take:
- adopt same gerrymandering rules as Texas and Wisconsin for example so that they maximize the democrats in congress and ensure they control it."
Um... they already do in States they control. The problem is that the closer government gets to the people, the clearer it becomes that Red policies are better than Blue policies.
"- when retake congress repeal the Republican tax cuts and increase the taxes on the rich while bringing back SALT deductions"
Um... repealing the SALT deduction will LOWER the taxes on the wealthy. Math much?
"As it stands, blue states give more to federal government than they get back."
That's simply not true. What is true is that Red voters in ALL states pay more in taxes and get less in benefits than Blue voters in all states.
Check your facts - residents in blue states pay the federal FAR more than they get back. The excess goes largely to support Republican run “taker” states.
Please check your facts before commenting, this is NYT, not a substandard alt-right new outlet:
1) in CA re-districting is done by an independent commission. in TX and WI it is done by the the GoP. And those are the 2 most egregious examples. Check your facts!
2) the tax bracket for the rich was lowered from 39 to 37%. They repealed the estate tax that does not really do anything for us that are not multi-millionaires. Unless you live in a parallel universe peddled by Fox News, you would know by know that the tax code favors massively the rich.
3) Enjoy reading this for your education:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-gi...
Even in red states like Texas, big cities (that are all blue and where most of the wealth is created) are contributing much more to the economy and subsidizing rural lifestyles.
Ummm maybe the blue state, should look into other avenues that generate income for the state and then pass on some of that to tax payers. Maybe legalize marijuana and use some of those taxes to help the state out? I'm dead serious, plus it would be interesting to see how the republicans respond to New Yorkers smoking joints on Wall street and outside Trump tower. The game has indeed changed, this is like Barcelona generating all the income and having it sent to Madrid..it's going to lead to civil unrest and we're should not accept it. Resist, resist, resist any democrat who wants my vote in November better have a spine made of steel.
4
Dissolve the public employee pension funds by returning those stolen dollars and tap that as an addendum to the tax base. Taxes could be lowered die the next two decades. The nearly $200 billion currently held could be siphoned off over a twenty year period to lessen pain caused by the state's $153 billion in liberal spending each year.
2
Resist and secede if necessary. a trump republic is not worth anything. if i wanted to live in russia or turkey i would. no more loyalty!
1
Republicans are a inconsistent bunch: they call the estate tax "double taxation" yet they pass a law that double taxes state taxes at the federal level. They call it "redistribution of wealth" when you talk about taxing the ultra wealthy at a fair rate, yet, they have no problem redistributing high federal tax revenue from booming blue states to busting red states. This was happening before the new tax code but it's more egregious under the new law.
The question is this: why does 50% of the country allow their representatives to represent only 1/2% of their constituents (assuming the top 1% are evenly distributed Republican vs. Democrat)?
14
'Republicans are a inconsistent bunch: they call the estate tax "double taxation" yet they pass a law that double taxes state taxes at the federal level. "
Um...not inconsistent at all. The estate tax IS double taxation because the income used to purchase the assets in the estate have already been taxed once.
The SALT taxes are not double taxation because the taxes at each level fund different services.
Why are progs so ignorant?
Chris, let me make it easy on you: Make 100k, 25k in federal taxes and 10k in state taxes. If you get taxed on 100 but your net income was 90k then you are being doubled taxed. Not a hard concept to grasp.
Can we dispense with the misnomer that only alleged “High Tax States” will be affected by this. Many residents in purple and red states will be affected too. States like WI, GA, NC, MI, SC actually have higher effective state income tax rates, and tax brackets where the rates kick in on much lower income thresholds compared to the alleged “High Tax” states of NY, NJ, CA etc. Moreover many others have sizable property and local taxes on top of it.
Please stop saying this is a blue state vs red state thing. While blue states may bear a greater impact, don’t forget to inform readers and red state residents that they too are impacted.
10
Many commentators have pointed out that the recently-passed tax bill and "Obamacare" were legislated on party-line votes; doing so looks to erode the respective bills' legitimacy, showing that the bills' architects were little more than partisan hacks. Of course the Democrats had a sixty-seat majority for most of the time between 2008 and 2010, and that a allowed them to use "regular order" to vet the various elements of the Affordable Care Act, and I think that extensive, public process likely helped fortify the law and ultimately withstand the court challenges since its passage.
The GOP did not follow this process with the tax bill, and now its hurried process will make it vulnerable to legal and state-level legislative challenges, some of which will likely succeed. "Haste makes waste", the adage reminds us, and now we will all suffer as revenues from this rinky dink tax scheme fail to materialize. The various blue states will do all they can to preserve their tax base, as any reasonable person would expect, and they will find ample loop holes in this law to exploit. Good for them! Serves the GOP right to be exposed as fools when the numbers don't add up in the years to come. Had they had public hearings, gathering input from a range of experts, they might have drafted better, more sound legislation.
5
As a liberal, I actually appreciate the debate that this provokes. I happen to prefer living in a place with more taxes, more services, better education, lower crime, fewer toddlers shooting their mothers at Wal-Mart and you know, all those other things that come with "godless liberalism". I like it and I'm willing to do my part to pay for it and I think we have a better standard of living for more people than those in conservative states with lower taxes, bad schools, and more poor people dying at younger ages for preventable reasons. So bring it on. Bring on the fight and may the best ideas win.
10
Why does this have to be a fight?
You pay for your services in your community and I will not pay for services I don't want in mine. No fight necessary
Perhaps this will give coastal states the kick in the pants needed to get their own houses in order.
The NYT article on The Most Expensive
Mile of Subway
Track on Earth
How excessive staffing, little competition,
generous contracts and archaic rules dramatically
inflate capital costs for transit in New York.
It is true in different forms everywhere.
5
Or...
How about cutting state and local and property taxes?
Like many NY State residents, I pay enormous local taxes and see almost no benefit.
We can start by ending state education mandates, free state tuition, state and local union abuses, pre-K, benefits for illegals, property tax breaks for "affordable" housing where low income people get multi-million dollar apartments, and government graft that caught the likes of Sheldon Silver.
At what point do we ask over selves what are we getting for these big tax bills, when other states operate so much more efficiently.
6
I look forward to Upstate’s legal challenge against being singled out to support NYC.
Time for our non-deductible state taxes to go up again, fellow Americans. Never can spend enough of other people’s money when you’re in the statehouse.
2
The furry unleashed by eliminating the Federal Income Tax Deduction reveals the lie liberals tell to justify the progressive nature of the Income Tax. Their unjustifiable ox is being gored and they are howling in anger. (Perhaps a smile would come to their face if Mayor Deblasio placed a surtax on all New Yorkers earning more than $1,000,000) Welcome to the lies being told, mostly by liberals, about how fair our tax code is in order to obfuscate their confiscation of private wealth and thereby eliminate private property.
The solution to creating a fair tax code is to create a Flat Tax with Zero Deductions. Every Citizen and Business would pay a flat percentage on all of their income (all types of income would be treated the same), with an exclusion for the first $50,000 of income. All deductions would be eliminated and each person would then be able to buy a home or donate to charity based on their respective merits. Progressiviity in the Tax Code would continue since their would be no cap on income taxed so higher earners and all businesses would continue to pay the flat tax on every additional dollar earned.
3
Making an optional expenditure (private schooling) qualify for a credit against taxes and making an “optional expenditure” (donation in lieu of taxation) qualify for a credit against taxes are not the same thing, this is indeed gaming the system. The latter “option,” if not exercised, would make you tax delinquent.
A state building all your taxes into “payroll taxes” in high tax (D) states is what social welfare states do. In return under this social welfare state paradigm, you get medical, pension, etc. Scandinavian countries are in the 50%-60% level. As Sen. Sanders has said “What’s wrong with that?” Plenty: (SEE: Washington Post Bernie Sanders United States into Denmark)
If the (D) do find a way to legally undermine paying federal taxes, just like in 2013 using the nuclear option (SEE: Washington Post Senate Poised to limit filibusters in party line vote), it WILL come back to haunt them.
It is time to tax THC (active ingredient in marijuana).
Make THC legal, regulated, and highly taxed as a “sin” tax. Concurrently, increase criminal penalties and enforcement on those who are involved in selling THC without paying taxes. The Feds would need to be beefed up substantially (“revenuers”).
1
The Great American Sham
It is a shame that it has come to this. This is an example of the thoughtless, greedy thugs that are in Congress. It’s never been about the little guy or small businessman.
It’s always been about one thing, making the rich richer, and the GOP donor base, fill the Republican caucus, with the hard, earned money, of working class Americans.
They will surely target entitlement programs, that effect children and the poor. As if being poor isn’t wretched enough. These folks along with their slightly better off, middle class counterparts, will feel the pinch.
I’m glad to see that there are people fighting back. Don’t worry fellow Americans, when insurance premiums spike, as they surely will, as a consequence, you will have plenty of company on the protest line
Let’s remember this when we go to the polls in November.
4
The $10,000 SALT deduction cap does not "single out" certain states. It is applied absolutely equally to all 50 states. I saw a list of the top 10 most affected cities. Two are in Texas -- Houston and Austin. Texas doesn't have a state income tax but they have very high property taxes.
The cities and states most affected by this cap are those with high income and/or property taxes. Neither of these facts are the responsibility of the Federal government or the income tax system to address.
6
To those who suggest progressives and blue staters are being hypocrites, hogwash, Blue states disproportionately subsidize red states. Even with SALT deductions as is NY/CT/NJ/MA/CA pay far more in Fed. taxes than comes back whereas many of the red states contribute far less than they receive in return, shifting essential services to the fed. For example it's rural hospitals that need subsidies or they close. Would love a purer tax code, lower rates, fewer loopholes but not allowing underpaid teachers to deduct classroom supplies, while Trump leaves billions with no estate tax, really ? For those who pointed out AMT eliminating SALT deductions, yes true for those earning 200K+ but for those in the middle class who pay a huge % of their income for housing & real estate taxes, they'll be hurt the worst. What a horrible, politically motivated unfair tax bill.
7
This is what happens when you have one party that cares only about its power and not about the country. We've seen it manifest in every way from complete non-cooperation with a Democratic president to ignoring an obvious cyber attack by a hostile power. Why should we be surprised that republicans would want to hurt millions of Americans to finance the wealth transfer to their donors?
9
Blue states like NY, NJ, CA and MA get back from the federal government less than a dollar for every dollar of federal taxes they send to the federal treasury.
Most red states receive multiple dollars for each dollar they send to the federal treasury. South Carolina receives $7.87 back from Washington for every $1 its citizens pay in federal tax. Mississippi and New Mexico, each gets back about $3. Alabama and Louisiana are close behind. Florida gets back over $4 for every dollar they pay in federal taxes.
"It’s not just that some states are getting way more in return for their federal tax dollars, but the disproportionate amount of federal aid that some states receive allows them to keep their own taxes artificially low. "
See the charts for every state below:
"Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?"
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-gi...
9
The most efficient way for high income earners, who currently live in States with high income taxes is to move to a low/no income tax State. Many, if not most, of these high earners have the flexibility to perform their work from anywhere in the world.
2
But they then have to live with the consequences of red state squalor. No thanks.
For years the Democrats have been telling us that the rich can afford to pay more taxes. They also have been saying that charitable donations should be taxed because that’s how rich people avoid paying high taxes. Now they are telling us that that is not the case? Can the Democrats be trusted on anything they say?
3
Clearly, the way around Congress is to eliminate nearly all state and local taxes. Then the state will be poor, with bad schools and inadequate public services and crumbling infrastructure.
And then, the federal government will turn over funds from richer states to keep the roads paved and the schools open.
if that sounds cynical, look at the states that benefit from the tax law.
3
Double taxing the state taxes, essentially amounts to taxation without representation or raising taxes. Someone should inform republicans and Mr. Trump. They seemed to think that they were giving the middle class a tax break. I say that it was a farce to lower corporate taxes, while reducing the chance of the people storming Capitol Hill.
4
Are there no Republicans in high-was states? I don't understand why this article is focused o Democrats. These laws are eventually going to hurt everyone, including the rich who will initially line their pockets. When the full impact of these cuts hits the economy will start to decline, and then every one will be affected.
But let's look at the big picture. The rich will get a few years of big tax windfalls, but before the economy is damaged enough to affect their bottom line the Democrats will come back in office and start turning things around again. It is a cycle designed to make the rich richer by constantly changing the rules to keep the middle class generating money that they get less and less of.
2
The $24K standard deduction will induce far more taxpayers not to itemize. Predictions are that the "itemize" percentage will drop from 30% to 10%.
If a taxpayer doesn't itemize, she can't deduct charitable contributions. As many charitable organizations fear, this may reduce charitable contributions significantly.
It would cost revenue, no question, but Congress ought to change the tax laws so that a taxpayer can deduct charitable contributions even if she takes the standard deduction.
2
I disagree. Charitable donations for most people are not large enough that the deduction makes a dent in their taxes. But the super-wealthy use them as a means to dodge taxes.
Also: tithing to mega-evangelist churches is a charitable donation. Should we really be encouraging that?
If you want to give to charity - and I do - do it honestly and without hope for gain.
Clearly the cry from the last election of "tax the wealthy" and "people need to pay their fair share" only applies to "other" people. When someone is perceived as "wealthy" because their family earns 150K - 200K a year, in contrast to the more typical 50K a year that the rest of the nation earns, suddenly it's "unfair" when the higher-earning-blue-state family is forced to give the government more of their earnings.
It's okay to demand that "others" pay more. Just not us.
3
What I find most delightful about this reform to the tax code is that is hits the states that vote Democratic the hardest. Cheers!
4
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-gi...
Which states are the takers?
If you think Democrats are your enemy, then wait until the big plans the Republicans claim they have for you don't happen. Then maybe you will discover who your real enemy is. Only Democrats care a wit how you are doing - ya know, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, the Afforadable Care Act - all Democratic bills, zero Republican support. The thing is, Democrats don't care what color your skin is. If that's a problem for you, then so be it.
@Leftcoastlefty,
Democrats care for a lot of things that I do not care for. I agree they used to care for things that most Americans cared for. I contend that Bill Clinton was the last such Democrat. After him, the Democrats became interested in issues that only appealed to a very small fraction of Americans, turning their backs on the working class. Obama made it clear that he opposed the working class by threatening to raise their taxes, especially of small business men and women who made more than $250,000 and filed as individuals. Remember Joe the Plumber? He ridiculed them for holding fast to their Bibles and their guns. Hillary Clinton labeled them all as deplorable and vowed to destroy the coal industry. BHO and HRC and their supporters represent Lasch's new elites who threatened the future of democracy. No, not until the Democrats become once again a party for all Americans, regardless of class, education, and means, I will oppose them. Thank you.
2
For years, high income tax states have used SALT as a way to disguise and blunt the impact of exorbitant taxes on their local populous, all at the expense of other Americans. Those days are thankfully over. Now the residents of these blue states will feel the full impact of the high taxes that their local and state governments are placing on them. It’s no wonder they are now considering ways to change these laws.
10
We vote for the taxes we pay, it's not a secret if you're literate and registered. Our state offering citizens social support like affordable housing and community colleges, should be further taxed, to benefit you? Who are these other Americans you think we're stealing from with our social welfare programs? You think this money doesn't go to citizens? Who do you think these programs serve? They serve Americans. You want the money for yourself though?
1
Nailed it. The remaining deduction for $10K needs to be removed as well.
No. You vote for your state and local taxes, get your services, then ask that we deduct these from your federal tax liability. Thus, requiring other Americans to subsidize your state and local taxes/services. Guess I am tax literate after all.
Sorry about the compact/pact thing. Don't cancel my subscription please.
we do have taxation without representation. 2 senators per state is obsolete in modern times. the 435 member house set in 1918 renders this body not representational at all. the electoral college has twice stolen the presidency from democrats in just 16 years. folks-- this piling on is what lead to the righteous revolution in 1776.
13
"we do have taxation without representation."
No we don't. Everyone that passes tax laws is elected.
"2 senators per state is obsolete in modern times."
No, it isn't.
"the 435 member house set in 1918 renders this body not representational at all."
Do you understand anything at all about our government? The 435 are reapportioned every census.
"the electoral college has twice stolen the presidency from democrats in just 16 years."
Nothing has been "stolen". We are a Constitutional Federal Republic and every President has been elected by the State Electors in complete conformance with our Constitution.
"folks-- this piling on is what lead to the righteous revolution in 1776. "
That's laughable. History much?
Sure, why don't you try to get the Constitution changed?????? Of course, that won't happen in your lifetime.
I think you guys have a pretty warped idea of what is "rich." I make a lot less than the 200,000 income being tossed around here, and I'm still going to get soaked. Why? Mortgage interest. Despite having relatively low property tax, most of us have high mortgages because housing is so expensive. Yes, we can afford the houses we bought. The interest was figured in when we bought the house.
Oh, yes, and there's unreimbursed employee expenses, too, because the state's actually kind of frugal with the money we have. You must live in some kind of alternate reality where California is doing poorly. We're doing fine, thanks.
I deeply appreciate the efforts to blunt the vicious attack on blue states.
3
I feel for you. But the prices of the homes around you are inflated partially because people are willing to pay forward future earnings n the form of a mortgage.
Nobody owns a thing... The banks own them.
If this law stops the proliferation of this mindset, then it'll be for the better.
2
"I think you guys have a pretty warped idea of what is "rich." I make a lot less than the 200,000 income being tossed around here, and I'm still going to get soaked. Why? Mortgage interest. Despite having relatively low property tax, most of us have high mortgages because housing is so expensive. Yes, we can afford the houses we bought. The interest was figured in when we bought the house."
Um... your mortgage interest deduction was not impacted by this law. Do you understand what's in this law?
1
You have a mortgage over $750k? Even if it's a little over $750k, you only lose the deduction on the interest on that little. On balance, you probably got a tax cut.
Those who think that the red states should continue to finance the projects of the blue states should read the times article on the most expensive subway mile.
10
New York and most blue states, including my own, pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits. How about yours?
Charles you are quite mistaken. NY and many blue states float the other states
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-gi...
While this is a dated article this lopsided situation has been happening for years. Oh and the Federal Gov't is spending our great grandchildren's money these days and the Republicans (as always) will only make it worse.
Maybe states like CA and NY are expensive because there are many districts with excellent schools and a good quality of life. Maybe Kansans and others like them should be less afraid of taxes and more willing to invest in the health and education of its populace. Because there is not a lot of evidence that the private sector is any good at that.
11
"
"Maybe states like CA and NY are expensive because there are many districts with excellent schools and a good quality of life."
That's not the reason.
"Maybe Kansans and others like them should be less afraid of taxes and more willing to invest in the health and education of its populace."
They are. They are just not willing to invest in the health and education of the citizens of the deadbeat Blue states.
Or maybe they provide medical care to illegals? Are you seriously going to tell us that NYC public schools are great?
2
Why did the biggest advocates of government run socialized medicine, Hillary Clinton and Obama, send their kids to private schools instead of the public schools? Such limousine liberals. George Orwell could not have written it any better.
1
All you need to do is read "The Most Expensive Mile of Subway Track on Earth", NYT's Dec 29 to understand why Blue State taxes are so high. Not so sure as a Midwesterner I want to be subsidizing that sort of pattern and practice by allowing New Yorkers to deduct what is essentially graft as a federal tax deduction.
16
Blue states provide more tax revenue to the government than they take from the feds.
Red states take more from the feds than they give.
28
As far as I know, it is we, the high tax, high earning states that have been subsidizing the Midwesterners, not the other way around.
33
What ignorance. The states with high taxes save the federal government from paying for many things. Is it a coincidence that so-called blue states produce substantial income for the federal government to give to the midwestern and southern states while taking comparatively little? Michigan, for example, receives significantly more federal money than California or New York, two economic success states that are the economic engines for the nation. The real question is why should the blue high tax states have to support Michigan and places like Mississippi and Alabama and also take a federal tax hit?
Why do I feel the breezes, of the winds of Privatization of public services coming...?
Its bad enough how poorly our local Govt's deal with budgeting things like road repair, etc, but if such things are privatized...yikes! The potholes will become tub sized holes. We'll all need to buy decommissioned military Humvees.
4
Privatized services are not more effective just more expensive.
Taxation without proper representation?
Calexit. It’s time for my wonderful state of California to leave this mess of a Union.
18
Hear, hear. Leave tomorrow.
The sooner the better
Why not call a spade a spade? How about a shovel? The only reason these states and locals got away with high taxes was by passing the costs to the Feds. So taxpayers didn’t care. Now they will. They’ll want to know where their tax money gets spent. They won’t cry rivers readily. They’ll admit sanctuary cities are a bad, bad idea. They’ll hesitate on allocating money for abortions and addiction, heck, even bloated rail projects like PTC. They’ll think twice about subsidizing wind and other hare-brained projects in the name of junk science, formerly known as Climate Change. They’ll tip the ICE on illegals to nab.
All good. Happy New Year.
13
Nonsensical.
High state taxes are largely a result of unfounded pensions passed by Republican and Democratic legislatures and a commitment to pay for education.
3
I disagree with your politics however I know that I will not be able to change your mind so I will not argue against all of the points you made above but there is one basic fact in this tax law that republicans can even understand. Basic fairness. Blue states already pay more to the federal government than they get back from the federal government. This law makes this imbalance even worse. This law in part lowers taxes on high income earners in red states by raising taxes on high income earners in blue states like me. I am not happy that I am subsidizing your tax cut but anyway your welcome.
1
but not higher education. tuition has tripled in CA in recent years. Bringing business property taxes up to current assessed value would reverse this if all the new funds went to student tuitions based on current professor's pay, new science instrument costs and building maintenance. Education is a social Good. Runaway overhead costs is a social Bad interfering with this.
What? I always thought that dems and liberals wanted wealthy taxpayers to pay more in taxes not less. Here, the NYT uses an example of a family that pays $30,000 in state and local taxes. This is very wealthy family with high income that NYT uses as an example to promote a tax cut. more evidence that journalism is dead!!
11
Or a family of moderate means who have owned the same house for years.
3
Why didn't the NYT example present the household income required for $30,000 in NY state income taxes? It would conservatively be in the $400,000 range.
I know the republicans are all stupid, but this seems brilliant. The more the democrats complain, the more elitist they appear. It's a trap.
Congress, in singling out certain states, had broken an implicit compact with the states.
You mean 'pact'?
If you google broken compact you are breaking powder holder.
Don't do this to me NYT.
3
Montana has 575,000 people and 1 representative in congress
New York has 20 million people and 27 representatives in congress
If Montana sets parity there should be 34 representatives from NY in congress
What we have today is taxation without representation.
31
Huh?
that's the point. SALT disadvantages poor states that have to subsidize wasteful spending of wealthy states. Lower your taxes.
Unlike most of the SALT donor states, New Mexico nets back $1.75 in federal help for every buck it contributes; maybe you shouldn't bite the hands that feed your state or you should raise your taxes.
You have two senators. The founding fathers knew what they were doing more than a bunch of tax and spend liberals legislators.
A favored meme on the left is that we saw immense and general prosperity arise in America when marginal federal tax rates were at their highest, from the end of the WWII to about 1980. This argument is offered as justification for keeping federal marginal rates high. Yet, what has been avoided scrupulously by Democrats in this argument has been the inexorable rise of state and local taxes which, when combined with federal taxes, make the tax burden every bit as onerous on those who actually pay taxes as they ever were -- and we're hardly seeing a universal prosperity.
What’s more, this effect isn’t just seen in most of our states with income taxes, but in ALL states. One way or another, Americans are taxed increasingly at these levels, whether by income taxes, other taxes, or by user fees and penalties. Government can become a black hole into which ALL production disappears, leaving less and less available for use by individuals, while incrementally destroying the incentives to hard work, good choices and prudent lives.
American liberals bridle at the notion that their worldview, if enacted and enforced, makes inevitable a vast flattening of society through redistribution; but that’s precisely what it really attempts.
Democrats in high-tax states have limited options to “blunt the impact” of the new tax law.
They will need to be FAR more scrupulous and realistic on what they seek to accomplish with public monies, or face open popular rebellion.
12
And, while I’m not a lawyer, it seems unreasonable to me to suggest that a law that applies equally to all “unfairly singles out states” when those states are the ones that have singled out themselves by their parochial spending choices. The tax law doesn’t seek to limit those choices, it merely requires that those making them pay the cost of making them.
There will always be high-cost, high-tax states, as well as others. But the high-tax states now will be forced to examine the use and effectiveness of those taxes on priorities that are salable to their residents. And that will force a dramatic re-thinking of priorities and, perhaps, even a dramatic improvement in the political skills of leaders in those states.
4
On the contrary, a "flattening of society through redistribution" is exactly what we want, especially since our most serious domestic problem is the widening gap between rich and poor. It is striking at the heart of democracy.
5
Straw men, red herrings and hyperbole are terrible ways to begin the new year.
The polar opposite of the vast flattened society is a society with the relatively few wealthy imposing their will on the many.
Just as Democrats don’t wish for the the vast flattened society, one hopes that Republicans don’t wish for the polar opposite.
For years, New Jersey has capped the property tax deduction on state tax returns at $10,000. Democratic and Republican legislators have proposed a plan that would allow state residents to fully deduct their property taxes. Sounds more realistic than the other ideas.
3
It makes no sense to allow state taxes to be deductible from federal income in the first place. Federal income taxes are meant to be a uniform national levy based on individual income. This makes the federal gov. tax people with the exact same income differently based on which state they live in. Take two taxpayers with the same $10M in income, one from SF and one from Florida. With a 13% tax rate on the wealthy in CA, the feds receive $500K less from the CA taxpayer than the one from FL. Accordingly, the FL resident contributes much more to the federal treasury despite being identically situated.
Worse, every time a state raises its income taxes, the feds must increase overall tax rate to receive the same revenue. That's just crazy, not to mention being unfair to taxpayers from states with lower rates (many of which are quite Blue). The idea of our universal progressive national income tax is that taxpayers and the federal government with the same income are treated the same no matter where they live.
The old system of deductibility was harmful because it incentives states to jack up their income taxes because the feds are subsidizing a large part of it (almost 40% for top earners). It would make much more sense to reverse things and have the states allow federal taxes to be deducted.
Lastly, jacking up payroll taxes will backfire b/c it increases the cost of doing business in such states. Firms will just move jobs and/or Congress will close the loophole.
9
High taxes are not a subsidy to the federal gov't, its the State doing the heavy lifting that the Fed has walked away from. Reagan Republicans walked away from State support 35 years ago, so the States had to step up with higher taxes. It was a part of the Republicans strategy of making wealthy states take the political hit for having to raise taxes on their own people.
10
"Lastly, jacking up payroll taxes will backfire b/c it increases the cost of doing business in such states." Actually no impact on the cost of doing business. The article states that companies would reduce workers' pay by the amount of the payroll tax and would be able to deduct the payments on their (companies) federal taxes.
2
Excellent logic, unfortunately "progressives' are not open to logic - emotion is what drives them.
1
The solution to this "Taxation without Equal Representation" s expanding the House membership to reflect our population growth and urbanization since 1920. That was the year Congress "froze" the membership at 432.
Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution sets NO fixed House number. It was supposed to grow with population, giving every citizen an equal voice, regardless of location. Time to get rid of the outdated, artificial 432 that skews power to low-population states. This would not need an Amendment, only a rule change.
Much smaller nations like England have much bigger legislatures than we do. Parliament has 650 members in its House of Commons alone.
In our case, the problems of under-representation are spilling into the Electoral College vote. In the 20th century, the EC and popular vote matched 100% of the time. But in just the last 20 years, they've already diverged twice, once by a difference of 3 MILLION votes!
Our current and increasing under-representation is unsustainable, especially with low-pop states exerting absolute and unjust rule over the high-pop states that subsidize them with federal taxes. The Senate was meant to represent states equally but the House was meant to represent CITIZENS ewually. It no longer does.
EXPAND THE HOUSE! NO TAXATION WITH EQUAL REPRESENTATION!
50
How does N. and S. Dakota each get 3 electoral votes? They have a population of 1.6 million which is the population of Manhattan. How is this equal representation? Why do we even have an electoral count?
1
"Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution sets NO fixed House number. It was supposed to grow with population, giving every citizen an equal voice, regardless of location."
Um... it does now.
"Our current and increasing under-representation is unsustainable, especially with low-pop states exerting absolute and unjust rule over the high-pop states that subsidize them with federal taxes."
Of course it is sustainable. We are a Federal Republic, not a democracy. We always have been and always will be. What kind of nonsense is that?
Come again how low pop states are exerting "absolute and unjust rule"?
Just how ignorant are progs?
"The Senate was meant to represent states equally but the House was meant to represent CITIZENS ewually. It no longer does."
Of course it does.
"How does N. and S. Dakota each get 3 electoral votes?"
Two for each Senator and 1 for their House member. Read the Constitution and our laws. It's laid out there.
"They have a population of 1.6 million which is the population of Manhattan. How is this equal representation?"
Who said it was equal? Very little in life is equal. Do I get tax benefits equal to the taxes I pay? No, I don't.
"Why do we even have an electoral count? "
Because we are a Constitutional Federal Republic, not a democracy, Thank the Lord....
I live in a state with 0% income tax and pay about $1500 per year in property taxes on a moderately nice house. This tax bill is going to initiate a migration from the high tax states to states like one.
7
But you are allowed to write off sales tax in the absence of state income tax --- and the federal government picks up what your state lacks -- this is not fair? I have reached a consensus, though, it seems everyone avoids federal taxes? Or only when their party is not in control? I always kind of liked my federal government, not matter who was in office.
As a resident in the high tax state of New Jersey, I have hope that our new governor will try and do something. What Trump and the Republicans have done is vindictiveness, plain and simple. I was no fan of George W. but I can say he was not vindictive, he had a good heart although his governance was often questionable. On the other hand, Trump has shown himself to be evil, a man without a moral compass. Unfortunately, since the states most punished by this tax law are also states that supply the most money to the federal government, the unintended consequence will be that this tax plan will hurt taker states, who are primarily Republican leaning, by allocating less federal dollars because there will be less to allocate. Their states, too, will be forced to increase state taxes or severely cut services to those most in need. Though I hope for a blue wave so that the impact of this law will be blunted, I think Democrats should operate on multiple fronts. I support suing the federal government, in addition to finding obscure loopholes that will benefit high tax states. Ultimately, this law may serve as the impetus to tear the United States apart. The fact that Republicans fail to see the short and long term damage they've created because they have been blinded by their own hate does not bode well for the long term survival of our country.
47
Gee, the democrat party accuses the wealthy of using loopholes to shelter THEIR money. Now the democrat blue states are trying to do the same. Sheer hypocrisy. If these states are so worried about the impact the new law will,have on their respective citizens, they can easily lower taxes to make them whole. However, I don't believe these states care about their citizens but are more concerned about their addiction to tax money.
"What Trump and the Republicans have done is vindictiveness, plain and simple."
Yeah, how dare they end this tax benefit for the Blue States! The progs in high tax states are all upset because they can't get a tax deduction for the taxes they pay that provide only them benefits. They are deadbeats that are trying to have others pay for their government benefits.
It's high time this subsidy for Blue states ends....
The school tax is by far the most burdensome realty tax. NY stare should help localities to lower that burden by raising funds from a broader based state wide revenue source.
3
No --they should put all their public employees on a 401k--they should be paying for their own retirement.
In addition all public employee unions should be illegal.
1
Anybody paying $30k in taxes to the state of California is doing very, very well and could easily afford to pay the % hit on another $20k in income. California politicians have no qualms whatsoever about passing large tax hikes that disproportionately affect the working poor, why the sudden rush to protect the wealthy?
22
It isn't true that people paying 30k are doing well. Maybe if you live in a low cost and low value real estate location. We are not talking about wealth here.
14
The additional tax burden will hit those paying anything over 10k--not 30k--in taxes. That will include people making less than six figures and owning a modest house. Those people aren't doing "very, very well"; they are just about covering basic expenses. They are the middle class.
4
Precisely. And to answer another poster's conclusion, that wealthier states will start bleeding folks wanting to move to lower-cost states: nobody in their right mind would sell valuable California property and give up the myriad of employment opportunities there, not to mention the cultural benefits of living in a wealthy, progressive state, to move to some taker state with low values on everything, real estate, culture and education, and few good jobs.
6
Congressional Republicans treated blue states, those with large populations of American citizens, as enemies. They engaged in an economic civil war against American states. These are states that already send far more money to the federal government than they receive back. They are makers, not takers, in every sense of the word. Without Silicon Valley's tech industry, where would the United States be globally or in terms of the future? California's economy is the largest in the country, and as a separate country in 2014 would have the 8th largest economy in the world. New York's economy is the same size as that of Spain. Illinois is equivalent to that of Saudi Arabia.
Why target highly productive and populous states? This hostility is against everything that blue states represent: diversity, good education systems, healthcare for their citizens, and forward looking policies and industries.
The corruption of Republicans in their tax cuts for the rich was on full display. Adding vindictive and cruel cuts to healthcare with 13 million Americans about to lose their healthcare so that the rich and profitable corporations can rake in more money was loathsome. The $7.35 million that McConnell, Ryan, Rubio, and Graham took from a Russian oligarch will not protect them long.
P.S. Trumpists who love Russia, California's GDP is about 80% larger than that of Russia, so all of Trump's Russian obsequiousness is shown as out of date.
2018 will be a blue wave. Vote them out.
68
"Without Silicon Valley's tech industry, where would the United States be globally or in terms of the future? California's economy is the largest in the country, and as a separate country in 2014 would have the 8th largest economy in the world. New York's economy is the same size as that of Spain. Illinois is equivalent to that of Saudi Arabia."
So what? How does any of hat change the cold hard reality that it is the Red voters in ALL states that are taxed more and receive less in benefits than the Blue voters in all states?
1
Chris Berg -- That is NOT the reality except in Trump world.
Blue states pay far more to the federal government than red states do. Red states are subsidized heavily by blue states. Mississippi receives $2.57 back for every dollar it sends to the federal government, while New Jersey receives back only $0.77.
I'm with other commenters. No red states should receive a penny more back than they contribute. Blue states should keep their wealth. With zero Republicans raiding their treasuries to give tax cuts to the 1% like the GOP Congress just did.
3
Voters in Red states receive a higher proportion of federal money compared to money they pay to the federal government in taxes. Voters in Blue states tend to pay the federal government more than they receive in return. The new tax law makes this imbalance even worse.
1
Taxpayers can deduct charitable contributions to the federal treasury from their federal income taxes, but the IRS isn’t going to count charitable contributions made to state treasuries in lieu of state income taxes as charitable contributions. It’s a transparent and easily detectable tax avoidance scheme.
7
I don't think the Democrats could have come up with a better way to completely extinguish the Republican party in California. The Republicans already had an enthusiasm deficit with the Democrats because of Trump. And now I can't imagine a lot of their voters being motivated to vote for the party that just raised their taxes when most of them only vote for that party because they say they will lower them. There are only 14 Republicans out of California's 53 delegates now. I think they will be lucky to have one by January 2019.
36
California representatives voting for the increase of the tax burden of Californians are: Calvert, Cook, Denham, Hunter, Knight, LaMalfa, McCarthy, Nunes, Royce, Valadao, and Walters. The only California Republicans to vote against it are Issa, Rohrbacher, and McClintock.
1
When the Republicans who voted for this tax legislation come to New York to raise funds, the business leaders, real estate, tycoons and their ilk should think twice before donating to them. They will be the first to complain when the lack of supporting infrastructure decreases the value of their properties, when workers flee or stay away because of the punitive tax code, class size in schools increases, and services are decreased. Let them know that this is a two way street.
16
The only taxpayers that will pay more federal income taxes in high tax states are those that make more than $200,000. The lower tax rates and the doubling of the standard deduction do not totally offset the loss of some of their local taxes. Those who make more than $200,000 are rich people, not middle class people. Obama raised taxes on this group under Obamacare (4.3% surtax on investment income and a 45% increase in Medicare taxes) and he called these people rich who do not pay their fair share. Tax reform actually extends Obama's tax policy. I do not recall the corrupt Democratic governors complaining in 2010. They should shut up and lower state income and property taxes by 30% across the board. The ruse that attempts to call payments to state governments "charity" is absolutely laughable.
15
In New Jersey, you can pay $10K property tax on a $290K house. Thereby exhausting your state deduction before income tax. I hardly think someone has to make $200K in order meet that threshold. This is a punitive tax, by the GOP Congress and Trump, who are aiming it squarely at their political opponents. They are declaring economic war on a very targeted subset of their fellow Americans, and it has to do with how they vote. What makes it worse is they are taking this money and giving it directly to their political benefactors.
20
The above statement is not true. My family income is not anywhere near 200,000. We will only be allowed to deduct 10k.
5
Rich in absolute terms, but not in purchasing power, which is what matters. Here in the Bay Area, a family paying $30,000 in state and local taxes is barely able to afford the median priced home.
3
Funny to hear the comments that rich should pay more. The top 1% pay 40% of taxes. If anything the rich deserve tax cuts.
https://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes
Lots of ways to cut local and state budgets. Start with not school or benefits for illegal aliens. Next outsource prisons to Mexico. No government employee should make more than $100K - even in high cost markets.
10
As with corporations, the very wealthy are only paying taxes on reported income. How many more millions of income is stashed in tax shelters? How much more is untaxed because of loopholes available only to the very wealthy? Are they’ paying their fair share? Certainly not!
11
You are citing an organization that the Kochs contribute to, and one with close ties to ALEC, the Kochs, the Club for Growth, etc.
2
I think you are hearing that cry about the rich paying more because it was they who support and elected the politicians who enacted all the high taxes.
1
The 16th Amendment says nothing about tax deductions and gives Congress very broad powers when it comes to levying income taxes. It is time for heavily taxed Blue states to shrink the size of their employee retirement benefits.
12
Cry me a river.
https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170315142330/Tax-Foundation-FF545.pdf
"The state and local tax deduction disproportionately benefits high-income taxpayers, with more than 88 percent of the benefit flowing to those with incomes in excess of $100,000."
15
Revolutionary idea :Engage in legislative horse trading with President and Republicans and propose doubling state and local deduction in return for building the wall.. for example.
1
We're already going to get the wall in exchange for the Democrats protecting their precious illegal alien Dreamers.
I love reading about NYC subway workers earning $400/hr overtime, which the times has reported, but yet residents of NYC are mad at Trump.
Look inwards - the labor unions, regulations, etc are what costs a ton. Trump exposed California and New York for what they are, long hiding behind the MID/SALT deductions, hoping others don't realize they're incredibly inefficient, over-bloated and highly-regulated governments. Of course they don't want the pork cut; these states want to scream about Trump while they raid every other fund to make budgets work.
25
Even if tax rates were the same across states, California and NY have high costs of living, and so employers are forced to pay higher wages, which results in higher tax burdens for the same standard of living.
1
$400? Only for overtime? That's peanuts. Assuming a 40-hour workweek, the CEOs at the 13 companies in the USA Today analysis rake in an average of $5,859 an hour. https://www.payscale.com/data-packages/ceo-pay
Amen !!!
The greatest thing about the tax cuts is listening to the Dems at the trough squeal that they are not being fed enough.
17
I'm not worried about myself. I'm worried about the people who will suffer under the new system. Those that depend on the social safety net, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. Grim reaper sounds right for you.
5
One interesting, but unappealing strategy on SALT and property taxes - get divorced. It may help avoid the AMT, and maybe you can develop a strategy to divide the SALT and property taxes so each of you can take the $10,000 deduction. Don't be a $100,000 income family, be a $50,000 individual. Just a thought. Way to go Republicans.
7
You can always follow California's lead. For years, they whined about being a "donor" state, supporting other states. They "solved" this problem by having a booming underclass collecting entitlements. Now California is very close to being a net "recipient" state.
Advertise being a sanctuary state a little louder and perhaps you can import enough entitlement collectors to stop being a "donor" state, if that's what gets you wound up.
1
as ,much as i hate this tax bill? i think the end result of tax lawyers going over this bill will be loopholes galore. some loopholes will probably be so clever that they will be litigated others will have a big bright welcome sign. my only hope is that tax payers without high priced representation will benefit..... then the only problem will be our wrecked country.
3
Perhaps we should stop subsidizing the red states who pay far less to the federal government than we do. This tax plan just tilts the field even farther in their favor. They should start paying their own way instead of leaning on us.
35
States like California should quit subsidizing cheap housing in cheap states. The wealthy in cheap states think their fellow citizen are serfs.
Bill, sadly, many Republicans don't understand this fact.
Whether we are paying federal, state, or local taxes it comes down to knowing that the taxes we pay will be used to better our community, provide protection from the many possible threats that the community might face and consider preparing everyone for what the future might bring. Taxes may be reduced or increased depending on whether or not the community feels that it would be benificial to do so or not. Our representatives should be working together to make those decisions and explain the wisdom of actions being voted on and implemented. Republicans did not do this and violated the countries trust. Some of the provisions may be good others will not be but there was no debate to allow consensus. State officials must work together to understand whether the taxes they are gathering are necessary or not and those who live in that state should be able to believe in what their representatives are asking for to manage the budget of the state. There should be no partisan politics going on here. Unfortunately our Republican representatives think they know what is best and need not debate and our Democrat representatives need to make their plans clear and open to debate to confront foolish and backward policies being instigated in such undemocratic ways.
9
Your idealism is refreshing. Please stay in the game.
I suspect charitable contributions to the state, credited against income tax, might be struck down as substantially the same thing. But crediting 90% of the charitable contribution to the state toward income taxes might pass muster, as well as increasing state revenue. And it would still cost the taxpayer less.
2
Seems like the states are begging for money
Oh, Please. Perish the thought of limiting spending. What is it that got these states who can't manage their budgets into this quandary?
22
According to U.S. News & World Report's national state rankings, Iowa ranks 25th of all states in Government Budget Balancing and #10 in overall Budget matters. Iowa is #3 in terms of Affordability,(congrats!) but 14 in Public Health, #17 in College Readiness & #30 in Pre-K quality. It's 16 in Infrastructure and Crime and Corrections, 14 in Public Safety and #25 in Internet Access. Iowa gets more federal dollars than it contributes and some 14% of its residents get food stamps funded by federal dollars. One could say Iowa's done a great job limiting its spending, but, perish the thought, to the detriment of the future of its citizens and thanks to the contributions of other states to the federal coffers.
1
Are you talking about Kansas?
1
I'm for putting things back the way they were. On the other hand, maybe states like California should think in terms of getting more bang for fewer bucks. We're a pretty well-run state but there is plenty of room to squeeze out inefficiency, duplication, corruption and waste.
6
the flip flopping of positions here is incredible. Democrats have always been for high, soak-the-rich taxes. Anyone paying 50,000 in state and local tax is certainly rich, even in CA and NY, considering the average gross income in the US is 50k. Yet Dems are now crying big crocodile tears for the rich because their taxes are going up! And the "fairness"argument makes no sense - if the people in CA and NY get better services than Alabama and Mississippi, shouldn't they pay for it? Better schools, better roads, more generous welfare, nicer parks, etc? Why should the people who choose to do without those things, and pay lower taxes, now subsidize those who want these nice things? If you want it, pay for it, and soak your rich to raise the money!
18
Democrat states aren't rebelling because the tax bill will hit the wealthier. They don't like the fact that (a) they didn't do it and won't benefit, and (b) might see their golden geese fly off and take the golden eggs with them.
2
Silly idea: cut state taxes. No one. An argue with a straight face that state and local governments provide high quality services at economical prices -- MTA, anyone? Other than run the state police forces, and maybe the court systems, name one state agency in any state that is run well or efficiently. You can't.
12
Right. Who needs education, hospitals, roads, bridges, city services? People should all have subsistence farms and take care of themselves.
It is my understanding that red state programs are subsidized by blue state taxes. As a blue state resident, I didn't mind helping the red states because silly me thought we were one country trying to improve together. GOP has shattered that notion with THEIR recent tax legislation.
Fine, let's play hardball. Blue states need to stop subsidizing red states.
Let the red states become low tax, low service places where you are your own militia, you pave your roads, build sewers, find clean water etc. You want medieval life style with warlords and peons, and walls excluding brown people, you can have it.
Blue states will welcome immigrants, provide services and opportunities, and yeah, have higher taxes. We will trade with red states only when we get a good deal relative to the rest of the world. The Trump properties can pay their own way, will be shunned by locals, will end up as warehouses for parking foreign money.
35
Let me clue you in about "blue states subsidizing red states".
Progressives believe that wealthly people should pay higher taxes, and poorer people should get government-funded support, right?
Guess where high income families live. (Hint, think blue) And guess where low income families live. (Need another hint?)
We have a Federal program that redistributes wealth from richer to poorer households. That the result crosses state lines in disproportionate ways is incidental. If you want to change that, either abandon the redistribution at the Federal level, or start moving people to equalize median income by state.
1
This argument is complete nonsense. It was started by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Think for a second. The Feds raise taxes where the money is made. That means primarily the most populous, richest states, with the most high earners. Where is money spent by the Feds? Social programs and defense. It goes to where populations are older (Social Security and Medicare) and poorer (Medicaid and Food Stamps, etc.) and to where defense money is spent.
New York and New Jersey have been "exporting" their retirees for years. Poof, there goes their tax revenue and the Federal spending on them follows.
If you want to get more bang for your Federal taxes paid buck, don't drive off your retirees, for starters.
1
Please don't forget blue state cities, where illegal aliens run rampant, leech public services, and steal from local hospitals in the way of unpaid services. Don't forget you can keep your cities of Newark, Camden, Baltimore, Chicago, Providence, etc. where crime and gang violence run rampant. Oh, and don't forget Red States like Iowa, Nebraska, etc. feed the blue states, which pretty much produce nothing that no one really needs.
This tax reform bill has the democrats tied up in knots. On the one hand, this tax plan is a “giveaway” and massive tax decrease for the rich. On the other, the rich in their states are getting a tax increase. On the one hand, the dems are proud of the taxes that provide these extra services to their constituents. On the other, once the tax deductions the feds provide to mask their state and local taxes are removed, laying bare their true cost, they howl how unfair it is. On the one hand the dems and their allies in the media have spent the last year severely criticizing the incompetent and “do nothing” Republican congress. On the other, the Republicans steal the corporate tax reduction idea from Obama (remember, he wanted 28%) and miss the opportunity to negotiate with the Republicans and mitigate the tax impact to their blue state constituents – who looks incompetent in this equation? On the one hand, CNN, MSNBC tout the unpopularity of this bill. And on the other, they fear February 1, when 46 states and their constituents will begin to see increased paychecks, at the expense of their liberal, rich, blue state constituents. I just can’t believe how asleep at the wheel the democrats have been. They have been played, out matched, and now they are twisting themselves into a pretzel with these outlandish ideas to game the federal tax system. Check mate!
7
“Our first line of defense,” Mr. Barnes, the Connecticut official, said, “is to take back Congress for Democrats.”
That is the solution, pure and simple. Let's start with the House in 2018 and begin the process of rolling back Trump's anti Obama agenda, not just in taxes but also the environment, infrastructure and immigration.
12
Maybe I am too pragmatic. Legalize recreational marijuana in New Jersey instead of this hair splitting arguments about this unpopular GOP and Donald's tax bill. The former will sufficiently provide the necessary revenues for social services, public school district funds especially the Abbott's, borough and township funds and thereby ease its resident's misery and anxiety. It may even be supplement to stabilize state's expanded ACA and its opioid prevention/treatment programs. Think of it as analogous to legalize prostitution in Amsterdam. New Jersey was used to be a Dutch colony. It connects to its roots.
1
Residents in my state (New York) paid $41 billion dollars more in taxes to the federal government last year than it got back. The same is true of other high tax, blue states. Where does the money go? In large part to subsidize Republican-voting states that take far more from the federal government than they put in. Wealth transfers from blue states to red states dwarf any payments made by Germany to Greece. This tax bill is a raid on the coffers of states that don’t vote Republican, pure and simple.
25
Why SHOULD NY get a dollar back for every dollar collected. If that was ever to be the case, why have an income tax at all? Why not let NY tax its citizens and just keep the money, eliminating the very expensive middle man?
If NY wants to get more Federal dollars, there are a couple of ways: attract defense contractors and encourage locating a military base or two, keep more of your retirees and their Medicare and Social Security dollars.
Look at the bright side. If this new tax bill forces enough of your high income earners/tax payers to move, perhaps you can become a net recipient state.
2
Hilarious! The SALT cap disproportionately hurts the rich. These ideas are all designed to save rich donors money. Finding new sources of revenue without addressing the crushing tax burden is a race to the bottom.
5
The first response to the new tax bill should be to read the NY Times. The article on Friday about subway construction in NYC shows that government spending can be dramatically reduced without decreasing services simply by avoiding the absurd waste that results from pandering to special interest groups. Once those measures are put in place, one can better justify complaining about the real deficiencies in the new tax bill.
7
Blue States already pay more than their fair share of federal taxes because we pay more now than poor red states that don’t invest in decent education and services from their citizens. Disallowing SALT deductions is only going to worsen that situation. The only way to fairness is to legislate equality in payments and receipts. If we can’t restore the SALT deduction, I hope the Democratic Party will ensure that no State receives more from the federal government than they pay in tax revenue, except in the case of natural disaster. People who vote for Republican policy deserve to live with the consequences. Perhaps when that happens, they’ll remember what side their bread is buttered on, and they’ll stop voting for people like Trump. Right now, they only think benefits are Welfare when dark skinned people receive them. When they want benefits, that’s their natural born right as American citizens. We’re in a new era, and we need to scorch some earth. It’s the only thing that will work.
10
Decent education in Massachusetts? Is that what kids in Boston and Lawrence get?
Massachusetts public schools rank quite well - #1 in the nation, #1 in quality, #1 in safety. That's not bad.
Our private schools and universities are also well ranked. As is the economy, quality of life, and crime stats.
Surprised the red states don't copy everything we do. We'd be very happy to help you out if you were actually committed to helping yourself out.
Don't you red states get tired and embarrassed of just bumping along dependent on our handouts to keep you above water?
1
A lesson here is that a party with a bare majority in the Senate can do whatever it pleases. However, when the labor movement, which has been battered by attacks by Wall Street for 40 years repeatedly petitioned Democrats to pass card checkoff, we were told that the Republican minority in the Senate blocked that, even when the Democrats had 59 seats. This shows what a fraud that was. Democrats could have waived the filibuster and done this at any time it had a bare majority in the Senate.
1
Senate bills passed through the reconciliation process require a simple majority. Otherwise, they need essentially 60 votes. Only certain types of bills can pass via reconciliation.
Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster rule for judicial nominations. How well did that work out for the Democrats? Why do you think the Republicans allow the filibuster rule to continue for all other legislation?
Clearly, for a variety of reasons the tax bill stinks and does not reflect the best interests of the majority of the American people.
It appears that certain shortcuts were taken and that lawful procedure was ignored in order to rush the bill through to please the President who wanted to showboat and get this done by Christmas. That sounds like illegality to me.
As such, a law suit should be instituted in a federal district court to challenge the legality of this bill. In the meantime, while that case is pending, that court can issue a stay which would bar the implementation of this nasty bill while leaving the current tax laws in effect until the matter is finally adjudicated, which could take a while.
That will fix them, the legislators who passed a tax bill that benefits them and their buddies. Before you know it it will be election day again and we can elect people who do a job for us, not on us.
4
Taxes increases on the well-off, in the form of reduced deductions for payers of high state taxes, are now "a thinly veiled assault on parts of the country that typically vote for Democrats"? Sounds a bit divisive.
3
"Republicans argue there is a much simpler solution for high-tax states: lower their taxes." Of course that's the solution. That way California and New York and New Jersey can, within a generation or two at the most, look just like Louisiana or Alabama or any other low tax, low service, backward and impoverished Deep Southern state.
The Dixiefication of America proceeds under the GOP banner.
14
If they want these services they should be more than happy to pay for them without help via the tax code.
So true. You wouldn't want the rest of the country to look like Oakland, Newark or the Bronx.
Funny how northerners who've never lived or been to the south believe they know what life is like down here. All I know is, Alabama, South Carolina, and the other southern states never had a nickname like Taxachussets.
I am not convinced blue states will be that much worse off, because the alternative minimum tax already effectively nullified the benefit of the SALT deduction. Our federal AMT bill last year was $8,000. That is basically the equivalent of losing the deduction of $32,000 of SALT. Since many of us already lost the SALT deduction to the AMT, it won't change the bottom line much. They can't take what you already don't have.
2
We can thank Pelosi and Schumer for this mess...their strategy to resist at all cost has backfired in their faces! If good governance was at play then a higher SALT would have been adopted.
6
Small federal government and states rights. Conservatives and libertarians love to talk about them. And now Im starting to agree. I no longer want the federal government taking my "blue" tax dollars and giving it to "red" states. I think its time for these "pull themselves up by their boostraps" Republicans to do exactly that.
7
Excellent article. This tax-destruction attempt by the red state GOP is in principle very similar to slave state secession in 1860.
It is disguised in both cases as a restoration of the old form of government, and a rejection of the new form.
In this case, it is sincerely to be hoped that legal challenges will untangle the far-reaching constitutional consequences of a slap-dash and unenlightened attitude about quick and dirty solutions for resolving serious problems.
3
Do you really believe tax increases on a small group of well-to-do Blue state residents and slavery are equivalent issues?
All taxpayers, corporations, partnerships, Scorp can deduct their state and local taxes but us, the individuals. For businesses state and local taxes are the a "necessary and ordinary" cost of doing business. I don't know why articles such as this always say blue states are the ones affected, we here in Ohio also have high state and local taxes. Ohio went for Trump by 8%. It would have been smarter for the Republicans to leave this deduction as is and adjust the reduction of the tax rate. Reducing the allowance for state and local taxes deduction was very visible.
2
I find it odd that people have taken such a short view of the ramifications of the change in the tax law, when it comes to high tax states. It is the high tax states that are actually supporting the non tax Red states. More money is paid in the IRS then tax states get back, while non tax states put less money in to the feds and get more back. That's the reality. They are the ones that need to live within their means. The ramifications of this change in the tax law are yet to be fully understood. It seems wrong, I agree, that someone should have a subsidy at the taxpayer's expense to buy a million dollar home, but in reality taxpayers will still pay the same amount of taxes as they did. This break is not being passed on to anyone other than the wealthy. So, they take it out of one hand and put it the other. It is the rest of the people in those states that will suffer the consequences, and their state will wind up looking like all the other Red states that have fallen behind in every quality of life area. The country will look like Appalachia in short order. What this will all mean to the housing market and to rent prices is yet to be understood. It doesn't seem helpful, though. As well, where will the money be for infrastructure? Trump is looking to get it from the states. What a joke.
333
Or begin the process of eliminating SS , Medicare and Medicaid!! Republicans and Trump will maintain they don't have enough money for infrastructure!
3
So let those valuable people move here and provide opportunities. We would be glad to have them, have lower unemployment and less spending. Not to mention many of those red states defend the country, provide the raw materials for you, etc.
1
Or stop funding billions to trillions on spying, wars and "protecting our national interests" (meaning not your interest, but those of the rich and powerful). If you want government, pay for it. The crime is the federal government running annual deficits, providing "services" and then making future taxpayers pay them off plus interest.
Americans need to stop allowing themselves to be fleeced.
All of this whining by the progs on the SALT deduction is ludicrous. This is a only a limitation on the subsidy the deadbeats in States with high SALT taxes have been getting for years.
There are at least 3 levels of government that we are taxed and from which we receive services: Federal, State, and local (there may be more than one local level). Each taxing authority imposes taxes for the services that taxing authority provides to the citizens of that jurisdiction. If a jurisdiction taxes more and provides more, then that is the choice of that jurisdiction.
If you give a deduction in one authority for taxes paid to another authority, you create a winner/loser consequence. If I live in a high tax State, I get the benefits of what those taxes pay for. I'd even. If I get a deduction on my Federal income taxes for it and another State has lower taxes that provide less services, they are subsidizing me. They don't get a tax deduction that I get and only I get the service paid by the State tax.
When will the people in high tax states stop being deadbeats and insist on welfare from the low tax states. They are your taxes for your services.
13
I'm sorry, but you have it backwards. It is, on the whole, the "low tax" states that are receiving welfare from the "high tax" states. NJ, NY, CT, CA, etc... send far more money to the federal government than they receive in benefits, unlike many of the low tax states. In a 2014 article in The Atlantic, it was pointed out that three states, SC, ND and FL each receive more than $4 in federal spending for every tax dollar they send to the federal government. In contrast, NJ/NY/CA (among other states) received less than $1 back. Those higher taxes support a educational systems and physical infrastructures that enable higher incomes, which in turn generate higher federal tax revenues that can be redistributed to the low tax states. If Congress wants to cap SALT deductions, then it should be fair and return more money to the states that generated the tax revenues in the first place.
9
Interesting how you don't mention tax spending. The Federal government takes taxes from rich blue states and mostly spends them in poor red states, who are the real deadbeats. The only way your specious argument holds up is if you ignore where the money actually goes.
SALT taxes do what conservatives always talk about, they return taxes to the taxpayers, for what the taxpayers want to spend on, virtually if it was still in their pockets.
If there was any equity at all we wouldn't have a bloated military and pointless multi-trillion dollar wars, because Blue states would refuse to pay for what they don't want.
3
This doesn't address the FACT that most "blue" states get a lower return on their tax dollars than "red" states.
2
Great to see this. When the federal government acts against the interests of a large number of its citizens, the states should work to counteract it.
10
The one percent do not constitute a large number of citizens, just a large percentage of the wealth in this country. Now they have even more. How nice for them. I hope there aren't any deteriorating roads, bridges, schools or libraries where you live. Or perhaps you've learned to live with them.
1
As a retiree, we already paid off our mortgage. But we do pay property tax, school tax, county tax, hospital tax, ship channel tax, and community education tax. Overall, we pay about 2.5% total tax of our estimated property value. Suburban residents pay much more than city residents due to other taxes. SALT actually does not affect or benefit us. At present tax laws, they benefit house flippers, individual investors, and commercial investors due to federal tax deductions. However, in the future, SALT will stop this activity, and is good for future home buyers.
3
Several commenters have complained that the $10K cap on property-tax deductions will depress home values.
Certainly it should, but the same was true years ago when Congress "capped" the mortgage-interest deduction at $1 million (principal) (just reduced to $750K). I thought that would depress values of more expensive homes. Maybe it did but, frankly, it's hard to notice any effect. High-end property values seem to just keep going up.
1
This federal tax reform was sold to us as a tax cut, however, capping the federal tax deduction to $10,000 people get for having paid their state taxes is a tax increase. Sure I'm stating the obvious, but as my wife said, the media never told the story leading up to the vote and Americans mostly ignored the broad sweeping legislation. Um, by the media, she means more than the NYT.
Most people I know have no idea that tax reform was even under consideration, much less passed, heck, they were focused on the holidays and that thing in their hand.
6
The Republicans were counting on people being focused on other matters. It is a bad tax bill and they had to rush it through before citizens got a good look at it.
However, I think that media (print/web media, at list) did provide comprehensive coverage of the tax bill. At least, as far as it could given the almost daily changes in the legislation. There were calculators all over the web to help people estimate the impact on their taxes, for instance. The broadcast media didn't do as well, but tax law changes don't really lend themselves to news reports. One really has to read about them and digest their implications. And, everyone from the AARP to builders' associations weighed in with their concerns, even if they were mostly ignored.
If there were people who really didn't know that tax changes (I refuse to call it "reform") were under consideration, that is their own fault. Perhaps they will now be angry enough about being hurt while Bob Corker and Donald Trump become richer that they'll actually vote in November.
If people were reading real newspapers like the Times and the Post, or watching CNN and MSNBC, they would have found plenty of information about how harmful this tax bill was. But if people shut out the real world, or watch Fox News and other fake news outlets, then that's their fault, not the media's.
1
There's no ignorance like willful ignorance. How many times must such donkeys be hit over the head with a 2x4 before they pay attention?
Most rich people don't care about money per se. They care about the power it gives them—they're obsessed with that.
That's why many rich people like this tax bill. More power for them, more weakness for you.
122
Just who do you count as "rich". You think say Labron cares about power or about money.
More money to pay sociopaths to make politics hostile to sane people, and pit states against each other to undermine them all.
1
I like the idea of legal challenges tying the law up in court so it can’t be implemented until the Democrats can get in and repeal it.
7
Let us shut down the Government, put a man-child as the Commander in Chief, and maybe even lose some states to succession so we can roll back those people. If this is what you, just wait. It's coming
3
On the state and local tax (SALT) deduction and the impact of the new standard deduction on charities - In its current unmitigated form, the new tax law will also hurt charities with close ties with a relatively large middle sector of taxpayers who have high SALT but relatively few other deductions that would go beyond the new joint standard deduction of $24K.
Under the new tax law, taxpayers who pay $10K or more in SALT, pay interest on a mortgage below $300K at less than 4%, and no other deductions will be unable to deduct relatively modest charitable donations below $2K a year. This disincentive to make donations, which will not affect rich donors who will continue to be able to itemize and deduct substantial donations, could hurt colleges, museums, and charities for the needy that depend not only on large donors but on the broad-based support of alumni, members and other small contributors.
If states succeed in achieving charitable donations in lieu of taxes, this may also benefit public charities – and strengthen their role in providing services that might otherwise be provided or funded by state and local governments - by enabling modest donors and members to itemize their contributions.
3
How about cutting bloated expenses?
6
Blue states can cut costs by stop supporting illegal aliens. California would save billions. Another cost savings would be to outsource prisons to Mexico. Instead of $30K - $50K per inmate per year the cost might be $5K.
7
lost in all of this is real reason for the terror of the elected gov of the "High Tax Blue states" It's that they never had to answer to the ppl in regards to their high property, state and local taxes, all anger was always blunted by "you can deduct it from your federal tax" Even in states with Repub govs such as NJ, Illinois and NY under Pataki, They fed from the trough handing out goodies to civil service unions and such to ensure their support, All the while playing lip service to the voters and homeowners, Now watch as the new class of Repub Candidates run on cutting prop,state & local taxes , what will Dems counter with? "No cuts we have to keep your taxes high" The GOP is salivating to run on cutting taxes coupled with a good economy, FYI NJ shore towns like Spring Lake, thru Monmouth beach (10 separate towns) with a year round population less then Williamsburg bklyn have 10 separate police, fire Dept mayors, town councils and boro halls! If it was consolidated to one municipality the savings would be huge (ex some of the summer only towns have no Public schools and the property tax is much lower for comp hm) in fact the dividing line between Allenhurst and Loch Arbour (across the street fm 1 another) the property taxes were double! until this yr when education req for town were dropped as there are less then 10 kids in town, Remember no elected official likes to give up their power and control of purse, these cantons are replete in NJ and outside 5 boros
6
Retaking Congress is crucial, but in the short term, let states 1) figure out stopgap measures, and take advantage of this crisis to 2) tackle some of the idiocy in pension plans, 3) reduce costs by combining services over several townships (heresy!), and 4) tackling general corruption (even more heresy!!).
3
It's all about greed and politics. And it's only Liberals that would believe that somehow it unfair to NOT recieve a higher deduction than everybody else. Myopic, selfish, greedy, childish victims.
3
It was a little more than disheartening the another high tax state - Maine - was thrown overboard by Sen. Susan Collins and Rep. Bruce Poliquin. As one of the oldest and poorest states in the nation, much of our taxes derive from infrastructure (schools, slow plowing, road maintence, etc.) although to hear the Republicans cry about it - it is a "welfare paradise" (hardly - Gov. LePage having rejected Medicaid Expansion 7 times, even after voter-approved on referendum).
Collins, who supposed got what she wanted ($10,000 on property taxes) while throwing Sate taxpayers overboard, throwing the towel in on ANWR, actually introducing her BFF Jeff Sessions as an "honorable Man", etc.
We are not fooled in the slightest, particularly in the Southern Maine that drives the state economy. We presume the Collins really did fall of the potato truck in Arrostook and has been "played" as complete fool.
3
Taxation without Representation.
Trumped taxes.
5
I love how the Republicans scream "States' Rights!" and "Federalism" any time the federal gov't tries to make life a little less desperate for people, but if the people of a state want to pay state taxes to fund a gov't that makes life a little less nasty, brutish and short they scream "No! You have to cut your taxes!"
My advice to red-state Republicans: mind your own state's government. If CT wants to have payroll taxes or give state tax credits for charitable contributions, that's not your affair.
12
So paying one's fair share isn't patriotic any more?
4
It is patriotic, but only when it's fair!
It is time to properly tax all those foreign money laundering real estate investors in the vacant properties they wash their money through in NY and CA
Bigly
4
Hackles up!
Yes, please Northern States (Democrates or Republicans) do something! The only reason that there is "growth" in the South is because retirees can cash out from their overpriced real estate and move to a low property tax state. I have never seen a study on the economic implications of this phenomenon but the casual observe will note that in communities with a disproportionate number of out of state retirees, housing options and prices are out of balance with the job prospects for young families and insurance premiums have become totally messed up.
2
There is a lot of information left out in these articles abut taxes in blue states. For example, another article states AI can determine stuff from analyzing google street views. What's that about? The article explains in detail how "car recognition", like face recognition, can be used to determine income status and carbon footprints of distinct districts using the computing power of AI. But, the articles on taxation don't even attempt to explain what the tax structures are in the states negatively affected by the new law, other than that they are "high tax states".
So tell us what those taxes are and how they compare tax by tax to other states. Then tell us how that tax revenue is spent state by state--what are the comparative state services offered especially education and healthcare, what are the salaries and pensions and benefits including health care to state workers, what are the state and contractor prices for doing routine construction/road work, etc. A complete list and comparison, including the cost of recent construction projects.
what am i getting at here? You will find that in CA, there is every kind of tax imaginable--a property tax, a sales tax, an income tax, a lottery tax/legalized gambling falling mostly on the poor, and high use taxes including parking meters with high fines even in remote locations. You will find spending is way out of whack--look at bridges and subways and prison expenses--all amounting to taxpayer paid political slush funds.
4
Too bad the Democrats rolled the dice on blocking the tax legislation instead of joining in to make it bipartisan. They could have negotiated for a $25k cap on the state and local taxes instead of $10k. The majority of this tax legislation is not objectionable to most Democrats, it's only the details they are quibbling over.
The transfer of wealth from the wealthiest states to the poorer states that this tax law will accomplish is the most progressive tax change in many years. Why are Democrats complaining?
11
Too bad the Democrats were not allowed to participate or offer any amendments to the legislation. No debate, no allowing the public, the press or even the CBO to evaluate the legislation. Coulda, shoulda, woulda if they had a chance to represent their constituents too, but Republicans don't play that way.
2
This closed door tax bill was designed to keep the Dems locked out of the process, both so that an argument like yours could be used against them in the 2018 elections, and because the republicans wanted as little daylight and conversation about this toxic bill to be public.
They wouldn’t haven gotten a $25K offset, anyway.
Additionally, why would democrats be happy with such a cynically designed “transfer of wealth” to red states? Red states already benefit disproportionately from federal taxes paid by blue states.. This was designed to help fund tax cuts for super wealthy donors to republicans in Congress by states who don’t vote republicans into national office.. No loss for them. They’ll be gone after 2018..
1
Your memory is selective. Dems were NOT invited to the secret, behind-closed-door meetings when the decisions were made. And then given a day to read 500 pages of tax legislation. How does one reasonably "negotiate" from that stance?
Double Taxation Hurts Blue States
Double taxation is a taxation principle referring to income taxes paid twice on the same source of earned income. It can occur when income is taxed at both the state and federal level. If your itemized deductions are greater than 12,000(single) and 24,000(married) then the money above those thresholds is doubly taxed. Thank the man sent to represent you in Congress.
Now Rodney will tell you, I subscribe to his emails, that he voted against this travesty foisted upon blue state folks. That he is fighting as hard as he can to protect your interests. That would be misleading. On October 26, 2017, Rodney voted Yea on H Con Res 71. He was the only NJ Representative to do so. This is the bill that allowed Congress to go after the property tax break. Rodney’s words do not equal his actions. He did not look out for his constituency.
I would like the opportunity to ask Rodney, face to face, why he would do such a thing. That does not appear likely. Rodney has not had a public town hall in years. He holds phone town halls that screens callers. I’ve listened and found them to be useless. Maybe if he spent more time with his constituents, he would realize just how hard it is to make ends meet in New Jersey. And then, just maybe, he wouldn’t have been so cavalier with our tax deductions and would not have singled us out to be doubly taxed.
Double Taxation with Representation
187
Sounds like it's time to give Rodney the boot next year.
2
Not double taxation at all, different taxation. And you could do without an income tax in your state, some do that. How about you just convert to say a VA tax in your state, see how that works.
1
If you allow yourself to be subservient to more than one government (which all Americans do: city, county, state, federal...and in WA State to other unelected, non-government taxing authorities that seem unconstitutional to me), then expect to pay each according to their tyranny.
"San Francisco Voter" (I'm one too) misses the point here:
"Plot? How is trying to save your state services for the sick, poor, infrastructure, and education plotting?"
Nobody is saying SF, or CA -- or any state or locality -- can't charge whatever state or local taxes it feels like charging and use the tax proceeds for whatever it wants to. All people are saying is that taxpayers who live in OTHER states shouldn't bear part of that cost, which is exactly what happens when a high-tax-state taxpayer deducts those high state and local taxes from taxable income. That deduction reduces the taxpayer's federal income taxes. The shortfall is subsidized either by taxpayers in other states (who get no benefit from the services provided to the high-tax-state taxpayer in exchange for those high state/local taxes), or by future generations if the shortfall is simply added to the national debt.
Each state and locality should decide -- more accurately, its residents should decide -- what they think is a fair level of state and local taxation, and then pay those taxes themselves, not insist on a "subsidy" in the form of a tax deduction.
As for blue states subsidizing red states (a standard "blue state" argument), that depends on what gets counted. Is a federal dollar spent on a red-state military base that protects blue-state residents really "spent" only in that red state? Should the tax subsidy described above be counted as a federal dollar "spent" in the high-tax blue state?
18
quote: " Is a federal dollar spent on a red-state military base that protects blue-state residents really "spent" only in that red state? "
The answer is yes, especially when bases are placed for economic and political reasons as opposed to being placed strategically.
7
Just because a military base protects all states doesn't mean that everyone benefits equally economically. Just the fact that congressmen fall all over themselves trying to get military bases and other federal installations in their areas shows that they provide a huge local economic boost. So, no, I don't feel that deducting my California income tax on my federal tax return means that Arkansas workers are subsidizing me.
3
So how should we consider states with poor regulation, high polluting industries, and dying industries as their only source of income? How should we tax states with large rural populations with very low income and mobility? How should states with more diverse economies feel about having to subsidize people who do not want to move for better jobs and opportunities? How should educated "elite" blue states feel about subsidizing ignorance?
The simple fact of the matter is that financial, technical, scientific and culturally diverse centers of the country are and will be subsidizing governments of states that have made poor decisions and have less educated constituents. This is true around the world. Countries that make poor decisions count on the USA to subsidize them to keep them going.
2
How about capping or heaven forbid reducing state/real estate taxes. Higher state taxes have not brought us better roads in NJ in comparison to say FL or TX with No state taxes. Also, higher real estate taxes have not always correlated with better schools. For every highly taxed good school district in NJ, I can give you two average or below average highly taxed districts.
17
On the contrary, Texas has one of the highest property tax in US. We routinely pay 2.5% to 3.6% property (at least in greater Houston) tax each year. News media on purpose not report this. Although we don't have state income tax, we do suffer from high property tax. SALT actually helps the home buyers in the future where current house flippers & investors artificially inflate the housing price in Houston a lot simply they can deduct the property in federal returns. In reality, houses inside of Inner 610 Loop routinely sell for more than 1 million dollars. Recent Hurricane Harvey also slow down the house appreciation a bit.
1
Yes this! But are Murphy, Malloy and Cuomo the ones to reel in high taxes and get them in line with the rest of the country?
1
This tax plan was developed behind closed doors by Republicans who represent, in raw numbers, substantially less than half of the country. And it was developed with absolutely no input whatsoever from Democrats and little, if any, representation from the states that will be negatively affected by the bill.
This is taxation without representation, and it is the blue states' responsibility to do everything they can to reduce the unfair burden imposed by these taxes on their residents.
I for one will be using every legal trick and tactic available to minimize my tax burden this year.
41
"This tax plan was developed behind closed doors by Republicans who represent, in raw numbers, substantially less than half of the country. And it was developed with absolutely no input whatsoever from Democrats and little, if any, representation from the states that will be negatively affected by the bill."
Complete bald-faced lie. I watched the committee proceedings myself.
"This is taxation without representation"
No, it isn't. This is a law passed by a legislature that was elected. Do you understand what "taxation without representation" means? It seems clear that you don't.
"and it is the blue states' responsibility to do everything they can to reduce the unfair burden imposed by these taxes on their residents."
What's unfair about it? This law reduces the inequity completely for low income Americans.
3
The IRS will be looking for you.
Trump and the Republicans have found a way to put more people into lower income status and all that goes with that. They have also gutted programs that help people and protect the environment. Essentially they are pushing the country into the new, modern dark ages. Shame on them.
20
It is astonishing to read these comments and see so many high income people complaining about paying their fair share of taxes to support the country
24
Trump hasn't paid his "fair share " in over six years!!!
5
Californians have always paid their fair share of taxes, and more than it receives in federal benefits.
2
The condescending comments from those in low-taxation states make me shake my head. As Californians, we've been sending money (in taxes) in good faith to prop up the US as a whole, while your states suck from the government teat.
Now you're laughing at your cash cows, because we now have to provide more milk to feed you. Shame on you.
3
Along with what has been considered in the article, registered Republicans in those 4 states should be charged a special tax: the Trumpian reaction tax equal to the benefits they gained by the tax bill.
9
"Along with what has been considered in the article, registered Republicans in those 4 states should be charged a special tax: the Trumpian reaction tax equal to the benefits they gained by the tax bill.'
I like the logic. Let's go back and tax all the recipients of this welfare receipt in the form of a tax deduction from day one.
Open your checkbooks, wealthy progs!
What a novel idea: reduce spending!
15
I can see all those Park Avenue socialites moving to Topeka to avoid the higher tax burden this new tax "reform" imposes.
"Greeeen Acres is the place to be...."
15
Turn Kansas blue.
And they are welcome to do so! It would actually be great for liberals to spread out and take our ideas and our votes to the middle of the country. There should be a national relocation program -- cheaper than funding Hilary's campaign and more effective.
Who benefits from high taxes? The people that use the taxes. Who decides how to use the taxes? The politicians. Who are politicians? The wealthy. Why would any rational person make another rich at their own expense? That is why people are fleeing these states in droves. Unfortunately, fair states like Texas are being overwhelmed by all these poor tax refuges. I say go back to where you came from.
10
nobody is fleeing blue states. they are desirable in many ways. For instance, CA = good weather, strong cultural amenities, natural beauty.
3
I fled Texas to avoid the small minded politicians and the people who elected them.
4
Everyone needs to realize that there are states that because of population but mostly topography and location during natural disasters have to use fed taxes to clean up, as we should- but during a hurricane that affected the upper east coast republicans wanted not part of helping. LA, FL, AL, TX hello.
3
I expect our representatives to do all they can to blunt this disgusting piece of legislation; a smear against the cohesiveness of the union beyond even their usual irresponsibility in that regard.
CA,NY and similar states already receive far less per head in federal spending, thanks to pork barrel spending already favoring (comparably) over-represented red-leaning rural states. The ramifications of this tax bill, unimpeded makes this situation intolerably worsened. If we are one nation united then it high time both parties and both sides acted like it.
9
Actually, like everything those numbers are molded to fit your story-box. When you remove direct military spending (bases etc) the northeast is on par with the rest of the country. When you include indirect military spending that goes though to the likes of GD, Boeing and educational universities for military r&d, well its a whole different story. Albeit one that does not fit your narrative.
1
"I expect our representatives to do all they can to blunt this disgusting piece of legislation; a smear against the cohesiveness of the union beyond even their usual irresponsibility in that regard."
I agree. They need to remove the remaining $10K of the deduction so the citizens of low tax states will no longer have to support the deadbeats in the high tax states.
"CA,NY and similar states already receive far less per head in federal spending, thanks to pork barrel spending already favoring (comparably) over-represented red-leaning rural states."
That is simply not true. What is true is that Red voters in ALL states pay more in taxes and receive less in benefits than the deadbeat Blue voters.
"The ramifications of this tax bill, unimpeded makes this situation intolerably worsened."
Yeah, it's a shame the wealthy won't bet their full tax deduction. I'm all torn up about that.
"If we are one nation united then it high time both parties and both sides acted like it."
Agreed. Get rid of the remaining $10K of the deduction and stop subsidizing high tax states.
If we cause pause for a moment to ponder the irony of 2017-2017 conservatives advocating redistrbutive policy? We could also include the blithe disregard for states rights, but those paying close attention would have long ago concluded that this was never more than a useful talking point for the GOP.
Narrative isn’t what matters, its reality. I have as yet found little to substantiate your counter-claim... https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-gi...
Over 40 years ago, I moved from Maryland to Arkansas. It took 25 years for the property taxes on a very nice house in one of the nicest neighborhoods in Little Rock to reach the dollar value of what we paid on a 22 ft. wide town house in Baltimore. We've enjoyed living in Arkansas, but I do not have any illusions about the downside of being in a low tax, low services, state. The burden falls more on people less fortunate than my family, but I have to see it up close, and the roads stink. Since Republicans have taken over, they are cutting our already low taxes--starting at the top, of course--and services are deteriorating. The only thing that makes real sense in this article is the last line: the solution "is to take back Congress for Democrats." There seems to be no limit to the mean spiritedness of Republicans, and the hardships they are willing to impose on American citizens who are not rich. In the October 1, 1985, Doonesbury, the homeless schizophrenic, Elmont, stood on the street of DC and screamed, "Wake up America! We need taxes!" Wisdom from the mouth of the fool.
41
What city in Arkansas has these unacceptable streets? Little Rock? How long has that city had a prog mayor? I don't see the rest of the state complaining.
It seems neither side wants to pay them????
I thought liberal progressives were more than happy to pay more taxes. Funny, those liberal progressives, the majority of whom live in blue states, don’t seem too happy now that they really are going to pay more taxes. Where are all those people in the blue states who said they want to pay more? Speak up, please.
20
Wealthy blue staters realize this is double tax.
Conservatives have always been fed the line that Progressives "were more than happy to pay more taxes." Conservatives have never been told the whole truth, however, which is Progressives are willing to pay the taxes necessary for a healthy, working, productive society where pay is sufficient, education is good and health care is available.
1
Scott, You’re misinformed because us liberals don’t mind paying higher taxes under a fair system, where everyone pays their fair share. Unfortunately, this new tax plan is anything but fair.
Both the Clinton's and the Obama's need no cushion from the GOP tax steal in their high-tax New York and Illinois home states. Thanks to the millions they "earned" from their "public service".
11
See orinhatch
1
See Bob Corker, Jeff Flake,
1
We all see here the negative reaction of low tax state residents to the proposed ideas to address the harm imposed by a gerrymandered congress and their patsy president on average middle class tax-payers in high (housing) cost states. The fact that this enhanced tax burden disproportionately falls on democratic sates is it a source of additional joy to them, reflected in a number of these reader comments to this article.
I propose we in the target states: NY, CA, CT, NJ and others subject to this federal abuse take a page from the South's old playbook and unite under a single new national banner. I give you the: Golden Garden Nutmeg Empire States of America! Let's see how the remainder get along without us.
8
Sure would like to give it a try. Of course, you might miss Texas oil and gas, Indiana corn, Kansas wheat, Alabama cotton, and Florida winter warmth, sunshine, and orange juice. Even smug superiority requires perspective.
1
They'll never let us secede! They're too dependent on our tax dollars. Here's an action to take: start a boycott of the automobiles(Mercedes, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Subaru, Ford) that are built in states hostile to the blue states.
2
Who could have predicted that the power of the states would become a force to support and encourage.The events of this year have highlighted in bright neon the role of the old white men lemming Republicans.They allowed Trump to slam every other candidate and win the party's primary. They knew that he was the worst but they did not try to stop him. Our Congress has now become the enemy of the people. Even repubs from NY, NJ and Ca voted for the tax bill which they could have pushed off the tracks.
Thank goodness for the AG's, the mayors and the governors who, with the new roles of resistance and pushback against the president and the Congress, are in this fight for the residents in their states.
7
History begins with you!
The key to the present is the past! Protect the vote!
" Even repubs from NY, NJ and Ca voted for the tax bill which they could have pushed off the tracks."
Don't worry we're going to those reps down.
1
If the Republicans can play favorites with the states, the Democrats can and should do the same thing to the red states until gerrymandering is eliminated. Follow in their leader's footsteps and hit them 10 times harder. That is all that may get their attention.
7
Step up! Vote!
This article indicates additional ways Democratic politicians and activists in blue-states are attempting to loosen the ties between their states and the central government, all three branches of which are controlled by Republicans. The extant ways include support for sanctuary cities, local judges overturning the travel ban, and a movement in California to secede.
4
Clean air and clean water has no color.
Dio...and....? You make a claim but do not follow up with any substance.
And if memory serves Red States have been screaming about less federal interference and secession (Texas, till they need our disaster relief money) way longer and louder than any Blue state.
But lets not forget that the US Constitution is written with the States having the greater power.
Time for the Blues to turn the tables on the Reds when it comes to exerting States rights.
1
Yes, imagine if the Blue States refused to pay any federal taxes under a Red administration. And the Red States did the same under every Blue administration.
Who'd come out ahead?
This is a typical and standard Machavellian technique of the republicans to distract and detour effective political response by dividing the working and middle class with bogus arguments like mortgage deductions and SALT just like they do with abortion and gun rights. And the adult children just keep falling for it, instead of noticing the class warfare being waged on all of us by the uberwealthy.
13
Howard Zinn thank you. The trick has always been to put the middle aga Not itself and the lower against both.
Yes, I agree, Russian intervention of American Democracy is tough to discuss.
Re: raising NY’s taxes on millionaires now:
NY already taxes wealthy people more than states like North Carolina. You’d drive them out of your state. I expect you’d lose more than you gained.
5
See how AL FL TX LA feel about not gettin fed aid when they need it?? I am no millionaire but good luck rebuilding after natural disasters without the high income states hi populous states fed money. Insane thinking here
1
Doing to the country what Brownback did to Kansas. Any way I can re-gift this "greatest of all Christmas presents?"
6
Blue state tax dodgers, all the while demanding more and bigger federal spending programs.
7
Clean air and clean water has no color.
Heaven forbid that the high-tax states reverse course and let their folk keep more of their hard earned money.
No. They will lie, steal, cheat tand game the system to keep their grossly bloated governments awash in tax dollars.
Here's some ideas;
slash municipal government by 30% to start.
eliminate duplicative layers of hamlet, village, town, borough, county and state services.
kick dead-beats off the welfare and disability rolls.
kill all municipal unions.
quit patting me on the back while you're picking my pocket.
And see if you cane even come close to funding all of those gold plated un-funded pension obligations.
Hey Govs. Cuomo and Brown--the gravy train's over.
15
And then we can become like a third world country like so many states in the south and some in the mid west.
Insurance companies don't help pay for replacement of fire damaged homes or water damaged homes. Thats a lotta meat sauce.
Sorry Bill.
The rankings of your elementary schools in madison are falling like a rock:
https://www.schooldigger.com/go/CT/schoolrank.aspx
Welcome to the gold plated third world. I guess you want to pay more taxes...
The red states have been taking from the blue states for many years.
Now, they have found a way to take even more.
11
Apparently Blue State Liberals want to maintain the tax policies that sustain the income inequality they constantly squawk about. In the example the Times offers, the besieged family has a state tax obligation ($30,000) greater than the federal poverty level of a family of four. Liberals make hypocrites look saintly. Sad? No. Pathetic.
10
Called up my local federal government office to get them to cut down trees on their land next to my house.. fire ladders.
No one in the office. My property can't see Great Lake view because trees growing on federal government land owned by all americans is in the way!!!!!
Firefighters are heros to protect my home. Firefighters are seasonal workers. No heath insurance.... blah blah details details..
I am glad for the loss of this deduction. It will cost me money, but it is the right thing to do. The public sector does not need to get its revenue with my pretax dollars. Instead, they can compete with the private sector on a fair basis, after I have paid my federal taxes. If they offer me a compelling amenity or public service, I will pay. Otherwise, the wild greed of the public sector -- which takes its money from me with the barrel of a gun -- must be tamed.
11
So you are ok with double taxation? Absurd.
Liz, double taxation is how the real world works. My customers pay their income taxes BEFORE they patronize my business. Then, I pay income taxes on my income. If you are concerned about the high cost of public sector, be sure to attend community meetings and strongly advocate for your position to lower those costs.
3
You don’t seem to understand how ridiculous your assessment is. The public sector — barrel of gun or no — includes the federal government, which has now chosen to tax retroactively decisions states and towns made over decades. You may wish they’d compete with the private sector, but you’re probably old enough to remember airport security before the TSA. Do you wish for private courts and highways and armies?
100 years ago, schools in most parts of the world were privately funded. Is that the world you’d return to. Where opportunity depends on choosing wealthy parents?
High tax states are not being "targeted", it's just that states without a state income tax are no longer subsidising those that do. In any case only the 1% are affected anyway.
11
Okay, then we in the blue states can stop providing nearly 50% of the budgets in the red states. Blue states tend to be a lot wealthier and the federal government redirects the vast majority of our tax dollars to more poorly run red states, which can't seem to keep up. I'm sure the nearly $1 Trillion in directed wealth will be wonderful from our perspective. A perfect example is Texas, which likes to believe it's some kind of miracle state and regularly likes to believe it could survive as a separate country. Okay then - let's take away the nearly $12 Billion in subsidies Texas gets from wealth direction and see if they like it.
Like it or not, high tax states (which BTW aren't all but most are blue states) aren't public sector 'takers'; they believe in providing for their citizens. You know - that thing that governments are SUPPOSED to do. (I remember a statement in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution; something about providing "for the general welfare" of the populace) All this bill does is to help the poor red states on the backs of the wealthy blue ones - even more than usual.
3
Oh my lord. The double taxation that New Yorker and Californians will pay in Fed tax will subsidize all non state tax states!! They already do!
Excuse me, jaco, but I'm not in the 1% and it affects me in California. It's a high cost state. I just bought a house a few years ago with certain deductions factored into my decision.
You're also wrong in that we actually subsidize red states. California is 9% of the population and we pay 20% of all federal taxes. So get your facts straight.
I've heard other comments like, "Well then move." Really? Move from where my job is? California's been my home for over three decades. I'm not going anywhere. Except to the polls in November to vote out my Republican congressman who voted yes on this tax scam.
4
I am waiting for the states, to sue the federal government, over what amounts to violating states rights, and taxation without representation. Not to mention the use of budget reconciliation as a method to pass this legislation, without public hearings. And, we cannot forget allowing legislation to go forward, that adds $1.5 trillion to the national debt, in violation of laws already in affect,
In addition, I can see a class action law suit being filed because of the tax law allows corporations to take deductions, which are no longer allowed by individual taxpayers. Effectively create a set of laws that is not equally enforced. In addition, under the Citizen's United ruling, corporations are considered "individuals"; if that is so, than that makes the new tax law suspect.
While, we all know, this will never happen. But, one has to consider that the new tax law was created to punish middle class and working class tax payers, to create a permanent tax cut for corporations and wealthy investors.
Yes, high-tax states need to look into lowering taxes, and run more efficient government. The GOP's approach is only going to create situations like Kansas, on both the federal and state level. Eventually leading to major deficits, and rapid rise of taxes to deal with ever in creasing deficits. Eventual possible result; a new Great Depression.
Let the courts decide this, as our so called "representatives', and "president", failed in their duties passing this poorly conceived tax law.
10
Here here. Anyone who thinks this only affects the 1% is absolutely uninformed.
2
A losing strategy. Democrats have spent more than half a century ensuring that states' rights - and in particular the 10th amendment - were emasculate via appointment of liberal Supreme Courts (like the Warren court). That clock will be very difficult to turn back, because the modern Conservative court would have to overturn a huge number of decisions spanning decades. The irony is too delicious.
Moreover, any significant restoration of the Founders' original concept of states' rights will be welcomed by Republicans, as they have more to gain than lose by it.
I am comfortable with the state being a charitable contribution in exchange that the state may not promote one religion over another, may not promote one gender over another, may not promote one sexual orientation over another, one race over another, or one ethnicity over another. Even without the deduction we should adapt those standards as leveling a playing field.
5
The example used here, $30,000 of state and local taxes, is one a a very "high" income family, thus their Fed income tax goes up. I thought liberals in CA, NY, CT NJ, etc. want high income people to pay more in income tax, not less. Liberals should be applauding this change.
I can't believe the editors at NYTimes don't know this. This may not be "fake" news, but it sure is flawed thinking.
20
Liberals would have applauded this change if the raised taxes would have been used for Universal Healthcare or something else which would have helped average Americans.But what did GOP do ? Gave tax cuts to Corporate America.
7
Nailed it.
A steeply higher progressive income tax would be fine. It should be 50% on incomes over $1 million and 75% over 10 million.
But the bill does the opposite. It lowers the income tax on high earners, and reimposes it on incomes that just so happen to be earned in states with high taxes.
1
Trump and the republicans don't concern themselves with the harm they do to states like California.
With republicans infesting an archaic, easily hacked, electoral college, votes from California and other high density states are now meaningless. There is a large trash can in the electoral college. It is labeled Democrat ballots. They recently threw 3,000,000 ballots in there, then appointed the loser of the 2016 election to occupy our oval office. As if this Oligarch Cretan actually represented America.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
7
"Trump and the republicans don't concern themselves with the harm they do to states like California."
What harm? They are restoring a level playing field. The harm you speak of is completely self-inflicted on Californians by Californians.
Do you understand this issue?
Do you understand that Trump lost the election by 3,000,000 ballots.
Try counting to Three Million. Maybe then you will understand the issue.
The GOP is at war with their sworn enemy, blue states, and are looking to punish them. Gotta love an entire party that's stuck in a cauldron of self-induced hatred of others.
5
"The GOP is at war with their sworn enemy, blue states, and are looking to punish them. Gotta love an entire party that's stuck in a cauldron of self-induced hatred of others."
Hmmm.. there are no GOP elected officials in Blue states? Really?
It's amusing to read the whining progs comments in support of tax deductions for the wealthy. It puts a proper context to their lies about selflessness and concern for the poor.
You get what you pay for...great infrastructure, parks, museums, a safe and prosperous community.
If you aren't willing to pay...you get none of the above, unless of course you are subsidized by rich blue states.
30
Or you pay high taxes and see none of that great infrastructure, prosperous community, etc. etc. etc.
7
Been paying for years and I'm definitely NOT getting what I'm paying for on the Local, State, or Federal level.
6
Got to love those clueless Canadians. I live in NY. We have the absolute worst roads and infrastructure, mediocre schools, lousy services. Yeah, we get what we pay for. The most corrupt politicians. The most incompetent administrators, the fattest public sector unions and the highest paid teachers.
1
Democrats must organize NOW to unseat GOP majority in House and Senate and begin tieing Trump to all his sexual harassments to kick up the woman votes, which will make GOP turn on women. Keep this heat on and take back the presidency and REPEAL this ill-begotten,unfair tax law
5
And who would your candidate be? Hillary? Elizabeth Warren? Bernie?
3
Time to fight fire with fire.
2
A political class attempts to game the tax law, look for loopholes and special interest tax avoidance strategies. Republicans? Nope, blue state democrats. What hypocrisy.
14
Of course you are talking about republicans and their overwhelming hypocrisy????
The cruel season begins.
1
Here's an idea - cut spending. Albany is a cesspool of government corruption.
15
Don't forget Springfield, Illinois
2
"“Our first line of defense,” Mr. Barnes, the Connecticut official, said, 'is to take back Congress for Democrats.'"
WRONG.
Your first line of defense is to LOWER our taxes. That will ensure Democrats will be elected (and reelected) and can then take back Congress!!!!!!!!!!!!
12
Enough with the blue states subsidize red states mantra.
Two seconds of search on the topic shows it is a nuanced topic. The critique is hypocritical and not supported by data.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/17/red-states-tax-takers-blue-states-ta...
3
Sorry, got your "alternative facts" wrong.
Using the federalist and nuance in the same sentence is like claiming the NY Post is the leading source of quality journalism.
1
Hmmm, I'm not sure how one can look at the data sighted in Sammin's article and come to the conclusions he proposes. I suppose it proves the old saying, if one tortures the numbers long enough one can make them say anything one wants. One would also have to rely on readers not checking the data sources.
Thanks to the Republicans, we now have a situation where candidates in blue states can run on a platform of punishing red states as a campaign promise.
1
California Democrats propose to spend $1 billion to extend health insurance to illegal aliens. Santa Monica lifeguards can earn $200k in pay and receive police pensions at age 50 (David Hasselhoff never had it so good).
New York City already provides health insurance for certain illegal aliens.
Despite the high tax burden imposed on their citizens, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, Illinois and Pennsylvania owe hundreds of billions to their underfunded pension and OPEB programs. If you're going to tax the snot out of your citizens, the least you can do is fund your obligations. And yes, Red states (e.g., Kentucky) have also demonstrated irresponsibility when it comes to their state/local pension plans. The obvious solution (shift employees to 401(k)-type programs) is fought tooth and nail by Democrat (and Republican) politicians whose primary oath of loyalty is not to taxpayers and citizens but to public employee groups that provide political bribes (woops, donations).
And despite the claim that high taxes support quality education (think about the children!), one look at Chicago's (home of the highest paid teachers in America) dismal school system should dispel the notion that you get what you pay for.
The Blue states could focus on the out-of-control spending at the state and local level but that would require politicians willing to take on the powerful special interest groups in their jurisdictions. Does anyone believe that's gonna happen?
16
I am wondering why there isn't more "outrage" against this ridiculous tax bill. Where are the Dems? Chuck? Nancy? Anything to say about this?
The republicans are handing us a platform on a silver platter but nary a peep. Strange.
5
They are wasting their time. People are moving out of CA, IL, NY, NJ, CT, like Titanic evacuees as their message is: they are tired of being taxed to death by the socialistic democrats.
12
Socialistic Democrats? Let’s see. There’s Bernie Sanders. And ... and ... anyone else.
Agree, but I hope they don't bring their high tax and spending ideas to Florida.
Republicans want America to be more like Kansas, Mississippi and Alabama. And less like California, Massachusetts and New York.
You can't argue with stupid.
21
Please don't suggest we move to states with lower tax rates. I don't want to live in Kansas or Alabama. I like that my kids go to school 5 days each week and nobody has ever suggested otherwise. I like that my state is not in the bottom 10 for healthcare, happiness, destination for millennials, places to start a new business, etc.
90
Then, by all means, enjoy your tax increase. I mean, after all, it's all citizen's patriotic duty to pay taxes. Isn't it?
2
How about you move to say Nashville? It is a great place for all of that and no state income tax to boot.
Here's a sure-fire way to take advantage of the lowered 2018 tax brackets, though this is available only to certain taxpayers.
Let's say you're over 59-1/2, you have a tax-deferred retirement plan with at least as much in it as you'd like to contribute this year, you report income on a Schedule C, and you have control over how much gets contributed each year to your retirement plan. (As I said, this technique is available only to certain taxpayers, though there are many taxpayers in this category.)
Until the 2017 return deadline, you can decide how much you'll contribute to your plan (within any limits specified in the plan or by other laws). Whatever you contribute will be deducted from your Schedule C income for 2017, thus saving you tax dollars at your 2017 rate.
How to finance that contribution? You can use any money to fund it, of course, but one easy way is simply to make a simultaneous withdrawal from your retirement plan. That withdrawal probably will count as taxable income, but in 2018. Your 2018 tax rate probably will be lower than your 2017 tax rate. Ignoring for simplicity any tax "withholding" from your withdrawal (which won't affect the tax treatment), you'll save the "spread" between your 2017 tax rate and your 2018 tax rate, multiplied by the amount of your retirement-plan contribution. And the contribution won't require any actual cash, since you'll use the withdrawn amount (taxable in 2018) to fund your retirement-plan contribution (deductible in 2017).
It seems that too many write-ins from red states don't get it. Blue states might have high taxes but we also have the best schools in the country. We provide the most jobs. (Silicon Valley, Wall Street and research medical centers have few if any equivalents in red states). My recent visits to New Orleans and Seattle left me sick from all the homeless. NY provides food & shelter for their homeless. And while state governments should shave some of these high rates from our tax base, Trump's tax reform is leaving the middle class, the back bone of our society, in the lurch. (I voted for him by the way).
I could go on and on. But it is a misnomer to think that everyone who pays $30, 000 in real estate taxes here is in the 1%. Try upper middle class. We moved into our second home 18 years ago when our family grew and we needed more space. The taxes were $12,000. With a kitchen renovation, an added on backyard deck and finished basement, they were increased to $16,000. Since that time the township has doubled our rates to $32,000. Now that we are about to retire, removing the SALT deductions that made it possible have become obsolete. We will have no choice but to give up our home. And what young couple will purchase it if they won't have the deductions as we did. Aside from resenting the blue states governments, think about the consequences to the middle class here before you criticize.
14
"NY provides food & shelter for their homeless"....Really? Our family was in NYC for the holidays and the sidewalks were covered with sleeping homeless people.
1
You are being hounded out of your home by your public sector. I am very sorry they are chasing you out with their guns drawn, their greed never satisfied. But that is the type of public sector you have in New Jersey. There are many wonderful places to live in the US. Wishing you the best.
2
Blue states may have some of the best schools in the country - but they also have some of the worst...
Which also manage to be some of the most expensive and wasteful, at the same time...
If you want to rail at something, realize that - just over the Hudson - many of these same commentista live in rent-stabilized housing...And that their stabilized rent may be more than $32,000/year less that the market rate...
But didn't see anyone in Congress trying to impute that as income...
See - in their own way, blue-state Congresspeople wrote off their suburban upper-middle-income constituency, the same way that the Dems tried to write off all deplorables...
One notable exception - Andrew Cuomo...
2
This is an opportunity for the States to reform their tax outdated tax system, that to a considerable amount on an archaic tax, based on the assumption that land produces corn and other products for sale, that no longer applies.
Sweden did away with it, France under Macron is eliminating it in 2018.
It is a regressive tax, as median income earners ( $ 59,039 in 2016) pay a far higher fraction of their income in property taxes - either direct or in higher rents -than the well off .
A far more sensible approach would be to increase the State Income Tax and lower the property tax. That applies, most of all, to NY State
High property taxes in NY State are the result from NY State shifting
State expenses via unfunded mandates to local jurisdictions.
90% of Tioga's County services and associated costs are mandated. The tax is strangling Upstate NY.
NY State has studiously avoided to increase the top marginal income tax rate (8.82%) for fear for driving the financial industry abroad.
Senators Schumer has frequently cited London as to where it might move.
Brexit has put an end to it.
California has a top marginal State Income Tax of 13,3%. No exodus of the
rich from Silicon Valley and Hollywood has been seen
Governor Cuomo and the State Legislature should take this opportunity to bring the NY State Tax system into the modern age.
3
How is raising the State Income Tax going to help when the cap applies to the Sate Income Tax?
Cutting state taxes is not the answer. Chris Christie and Christine Whitman "saved" money by not funding pensions for police, fire and other NJ employees. The State made an agreement with these employees and the State needs to keep its word.
It is time for us citizens to realize we need to pay for education, infrastructure, police, fire, parks, healthcare (e.g. opioid addiction)
We need Democrats to take back the House and Senate and undo this terrible tax legislation.
15
Let's not give Democrats a pass just because they're not quite as rapacious as Republicans. Those pensions were far in excess of what they should have been. That's true in all states, red and blue, and due to corrupt patronage.
Democrats need to get rid of Big Money. If they did (not holding my breath) they'd all turn into clear-eyed Progressives and we'd live happily ever after.
As it is, Democrats in power are just Republican-lites in power. This is like having a chronic disease rather than an acute disease - it's not good enough because you still die.
The states' rights concept has traditionally been harmful as it was code for advocating slavery. But now, all has changed. States like California will resist the feds, correctly. We'll see how much freedom we can get; I'll wager we can practically be an independent entity here in California, if the right steps are taken.
5
Would you rather send your kid to a public school in Massachusetts, NY, CT or, say, Alabama?
13
Go look at the schools in Lowell, MA or Hartford, CT. I'll take Alabama any day.
3
Go look at the Washington DC schools to see what high taxes get you.
Hate Trump if you want but you have to say he is good at what he does.
5
Yes, Ed Smith - and just what does he do?
2
Yes, he's very good at dividing the country; stoking racism and diminishing America's standing in the world. Applaud that if you will; I resolve to continue to resist in 2018.
2
What he does is sell his brand and con others out of their money (Trump "University," for instance). What did we expect from a reality tv "star" and "author" of Art of the Deal? Yeah, he's great for the country.
2
Loopholes are for people with money. We read for several years now about income inequality. "FIXING" the situation now with "NEW LOOPHOLES" isn't helping . Taxes are tpo pay for government services. Most poor people don't have to worry about loopholes--they make too little , but the rich NEED to pay their way so by creating NEW LOOPHOLES they escape their obligation once again, so it seems that the states are also responsible for income inequality.
Set a tax range, and make everyone pay the ir FAIR SHARE. How difficult is that. If the rich don't like it in Ca or wherever, let them go to Moscow.
We continue to be the hypocrites we were in 2017 and before.
The poor are the ones who are cheated time and again by governments manipulating things to coddle the rich. F the rich. If Brown signs anything in CA I won't be voting this year or any other year. Our elected officials are "Putinizing" the nation for the sake of a few oligarchs.
1
Politicians need to be brave and think outside the cushioned box they built themselves. How about reducing corruption, patronage, and the "buddy system" to reduce state taxes. Local taxes could be reduced by consolidating the thousands of townships that suck taxes out of residents for everything from overpaid overstaffed police to overpaid overstaffed teaching administrators. No government smaller than a county should be permitted in order to allow economy of scale and eliminate padded local budgets.
1
After monstrous atrocities like this, of course published by this awful "publication" during a holiday so few would see it - can any sane taxpayer believe that the democrat/welfare/illegal alien-protecting blue states are spending their money wisely?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction...
3
Here's a simple solutions to Blue state tax woes: henceforth, move to reduce public employee compensation and benefits to what Federal employees perceive. Feds pay hefty amounts for health insurance and have a hybrid defined benefit/401 K pension plan. Maximum pay is $172,000 annually for a few of us, a lot of dough, but there's no opportunity to double that by working overtime or other shenanigans.
Blue state public employee unions and Democrats work hand in hand to benefit each other. This really should have ended a long time ago. When it does, there will be much more money for the environment, social services and infrastructure. Who knows, there might be enough money to end the commuter hell for New York train and subway riders.
6
It's hard to find any proposals that reduce spending from the reams of whining opinions from 1 per centers.
3
Those taxes affect far more than the 1 %. Middle class people pay those taxes too and they are getting hundreds of thousands back from this new tax "reform".
Honestly, who needs RT trolling about California seceding from the United States when you have blue state liberals concocting these insane ideas (e.g. treating state income tax as a charity contribution to state government)? Liberals claim to love America, but when it comes to the cost of their single-family detached homes or tax bills, they are just as toxic as Trumpist Republicans.
I'm disgusted by both conservatives and liberals in this country. There is zero social solidarity.
Get out while you can!
3
False equivalencies. FYI those blue states ar paying for all those red states who pretend they dont "need no stinking' taxes" but live off the blue state taxes that pay more than they get. BTW no they are not the equivalent of Trump Republicans
1
I think Mr. Barnes got it partially right. It IS important for the Democratic Party to take back the House and Senate; but, it is for the sake of stopping the Republican damage, not for Democrats only, but for the entire country. Progressives of all stripes need to stand up and rescue our democracy. If not, we will continue the slide toward regressive oligarchic corporate authoritarianism, which seems to now carry a horrible whiff of fascism. Extreme? Possibly. But people didn’t take the Nazis seriously either, until it was too late.
7
How bout a deduction that never ever occurs to libs--cut state taxes?
10
If I wanted to live in a low tax state with poor schools and poor services, I would move to Mississippi or Kansas. I don't. I prefer to live in a functioning state
1
Thierry, Much of these state taxes from the high tax blue states go to support the red states feeding at the federal trough funded by excessive contributions from the blue states. If New York and Mississippi gave equal funding and received equal benefits from the federal budget, Mississippi would go broke.
So you want to take the biggest states with the strongest economies that benefit the entire country especially those state that have NO state taxes and turn them into welfare states too?
1
Tax online pornography, a freedom without speech. Porn corrodes society, reduces women and encourages unsafe sex.
2
This is not exactly what the parasite in the White House and his voters have in mind when they declare "MAGA," but it looks to me like a civilized way to resist their social Darwinist agenda. They might have to find other ways to pay for their "Whites only" signs; maybe tax sick children in the rural South or something like that.
2
We've clearly moved to a parliamentary system. The Dems must have an agenda ready on day one to deconstruct the GOP nonsense, and act on it.
First move...stop funding our abusers. Red Taker States are cut off. Let them swim in Freedom ! (tm)
2
Someone posted time to rethink sanctuary cities. And a reply to that was the illegals do pay taxes. Well I don't think the taxes an illegal cleaning woman and her day laborer husband pay make up for the cost of sending their kids to school and and any healthcare all of them get from the government and or emergency rooms. The world is full of poor people billions of them. One feels sorry for them but the answer is not for them to come to the US.
6
Nothing...NOTHING...republicans do is beyond politics!
Yeah...nothing like a "mandatory" charitable contribution to the state coffers above the $10K deduction line. Talk about an oxymoron (with the emphasis on moron). The Obamacare mandate all over again! How about simply cutting people's taxes? Never enters their minds...
5
It's not either/or, take back congress and insulate yourself from the chuckle heads that run the low service, immisersted, anti communitarian, take more than gives back, welfare queen red states
2
Blue States: Just send your money, you can keep your votes. The Vichy GOP revels in its' medieval "plunder our enemies" debauchery, while the electoral college ensures that:
While our Blue votes don't get counted......our income sure does!!!
This is taxation without representation!!!!!
6
Just an observation. Generally speaking, the high tax states are worth living in. They are mostly comprised of folks who understand we are in this living arrangement together.
Lower tax areas, again generally speaking, are full of 'every man for themselves' thinkers who want civilization in close proximity, but don't want to contribute to it.
I've lived in both. Both have very good people. I miss Chicago, but I now love Seattle. I don't miss Nebraska or Florida - the politics in these last two areas confounds me....
21
"Lower tax areas, again generally speaking, are full of 'every man for themselves' thinkers who want civilization in close proximity, but don't want to contribute to it."
Really? Those States don't have roads, bridges, schools, libraries, etc.?
The truth is that they believe in freedom and individual choice and expect EVERY member to make a contribution. That's why they tax less and expect individuals to provide more for themselves. When they provide more for themselves, they make a greater contribution to society because they are net givers instead of net takers.
Blue states are chock full of net takers. They are the deadbeats in society.
3
Quick - someone calculate the economic productivity of the red and blue states in this country.
The tax revision does NOT IMPACT AVERAGE American.
THAT IS NOT
The plan increases the Federal Taxes paid by the well to do and the rich, that can afford to pay more taxes by eliminating deductions for mortgages over $ 750 000 (!) and property taxes over $ 10 000.
If you can afford those, you can afford to pay more.
6
Plenty of places - like where I live - have AVERAGE properties over that amount. Its a hyper-partisan tax grab, through and through. Republicans never raise taxes on the wealthy, so we know the real reason.
2
If your mortgage is $750k, you are the wealthy class.
1
"Democrats in High-Tax States Plot to Blunt Impact of New Tax Law"
I imagine Republicans and Independents are doing the same.
2
No they're not - because that would decrease their loot.
Texas has no state income tax--but a sales tax of 8.25% and high property taxes. On one street in the Tanglewood neighborhood of Houston homes are valued between $2.5 and $4.5 million. If you look on Zillow, their yearly property taxes are between $50,000 and $100,000. With only $10,000 deductible in the new tax plan, I am curious how many can truly afford to stay in their 6000 sq ft homes. And there are many.
14
If someone's property taxes are $100,000, and we assume they are in the top income bracket--and that they itemize--the deduction under the previous code amounts to about $37,000. Now it's $10,000.
If the $27,000 difference in deductions for someone with a $100,000 tax bill means they can no longer their home, then they couldn't afford it in the first place.
2
"With only $10,000 deductible in the new tax plan, I am curious how many can truly afford to stay in their 6000 sq ft homes. And there are many."
Um... because they have large incomes?
If someone can live in Tanglewood, property taxes are the furthest thing from their mind. Though, according to SmartAsset a $325,000 home, in Harris County (Houston) is: $7,342, compared to $2,083 in Boulder County (Longmont), CO. In Suffolk County (East Northport) NY, it is $7,212. In Franklin County (Columbus), OH is is $6,594.
Most, of all these taxes go to schools. In my case, it is about 85%. And, in my case, the state, school district and county, have decided that they will not reduce taxes, even though most home values increase over 20% in the last assessment. Going further, the State of Colorado, thanks to the new tax law, knows they will get more revenue, because less people will itemize. They are already spending the money, which could amount to as lo as $50 million, to as much as $250 million.
I expect the states to increase their taxes, while at the same time, the federal government is increasing theirs. Especially when 2025 hits. This to make up for cuts to various programs in which there is federal/state co-funding.
No way anyone, in the middle and working class, are getting tax cuts. It is already a foregone conclusion in Colorado. My so called "tax cut", is just going to the state, plus a little bit more.
1
The weaponization of the tax code by the Republicans is maybe the most underreported story of the year. The tax code has always created winners and losers - think the massive subsidization of the oil and gas and agriculture sectors - but never in the history of the country has one party so transparently utilized the tax code to target a few selective states. To do this the Republicans had to overturn over 150 years of bedrock tax law that Americans should not be subject to double taxation. In doing so the President also made sure that he was protected by adding a last minute provision reducing the tax on his 500+ real estate limited liability companies by 20%, and of course reducing taxes on inherited wealth (the cost of this gem is being paid for by hundreds of thousands blue state professionals). Good for the blue states in reforming their tax codes in the face of the Republican "reforms."
28
Do they think their strategy will help them get people in blue states to vote red? Seriously? This will backfire on them. Might turn all of NYS blue!
There is nothing bedrock about tax laws. The 16th Amendment passed in 1913 (105 years old not 150) says nothing about double taxation. Our tax laws have always been subject to pressure from various interest groups. And then there is Senator Russell long's famous quote on taxes: "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the man behind the tree."
"The weaponization of the tax code by the Republicans is maybe the most underreported story of the year."
Have you considered that it's underreported because it's nothing more than Fake News? The elimination of this tax deduction for the wealthy is merely an attempt to remove an unjustified subsidy that the low tax states have been giving the high tax states for decades.
"The tax code has always created winners and losers"
Agreed. It's time to end this subsidy for the deadbeats in high tax states and eliminate winners and losers.
"think the massive subsidization of the oil and gas and agriculture sectors"
Um...how does that compare to the income redistribution imposed by Big Brother? How about you provide us some numbers? I think that would be interesting to note.
"but never in the history of the country has one party so transparently utilized the tax code to target a few selective states."
Of course there was...when this subsidy for deadbeats in high tax states was enacted.