Tax Reform

Four Blue States Scream 'Federalism' and Sue to Stop Changes in Federal Tax Deductions

New York gets salty over new limits because now the rich will know they're being soaked.

|

Gov. Andrew Cuomo
G.N.Miller/NYPost / MEGA / Newscom

Four blue states are actually invoking federalism in a lawsuit attempting to stop the Trump Administration's new tax rules limiting how much state and local taxes people can deduct from their federal filings.

New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Maryland are all suing Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to try to get the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to invalidate the new $10,000 cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions, arguing that this new cap is "interfering with the States' sovereign authority to make their own choices about whether and how much to invest in their own residents, businesses, infrastructure, and more—authority that is guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and foundational principles of federalism."

It may be perplexing to try to figure out how on earth a state can argue its sovereignty is violated when the federal government changes its own deduction rules. After all, New York and the other states are not actually being required to change their tax rates or respond to the deduction change in any way.

But here's what they're essentially arguing: The reduced SALT deductions don't affect all states equally and that this all has been done to punish "blue" states. As New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said yesterday, "this is their political attempt to hurt Democratic states. It is totally repugnant and hypocritical of the fundamental conservative ideology which they preach."

The changes don't actually punish states for being heavily Democratic. They do significantly impact states that have high tax rates, which, well, tend to be under Democratic control. They're no longer being shielded from some of the consequences of all these taxes.

So, in a subtle way, there is a kernel of truth here—the change in deduction laws may, as a consequence, force these states to change their tax laws and possibly their state spending. That's part of the nature of the complaint—that this policy "violates" federalism because it results in the federal government trampling all over and distorting state-level tax policy decisions.

There's a fundamental flaw in this argument. It only works if you acknowledge that the deductions themselves as they existed (as far back as the income tax) have always had a distorting effect on state tax decisions. These SALT deductions are not claimed equally across the population. They disproportionately benefit the wealthiest citizens who itemize their taxes. New York calculates that New Yorkers will see a $14.3 billion tax hike without the SALT deductions. But that doesn't mean the hike will be spread across all the citizens of the state. It's those who earn more than $100,000 a year who claim 81 percent of SALT deductions.

As a result, states that have higher concentrations of wealthy people (like New York and Maryland) could raise taxes on their high end and be sheltered from the consequences because of the federal deductions. The "tax the rich" mentality of the politicians of these states didn't scare all the wealthy folks away because they knew they'd be able to take it out of their federal claims.

This, Veronique de Rugy explained last year, means that the existence of the deductions was itself essentially a subsidy to states like New York and New Jersey:

Indeed, the deduction provides an indirect federal subsidy to state and local governments in high-income areas by decreasing the net cost of nonfederal taxes to those who pay them. As the Tax Policy Center notes, in some instances these state and local governments effectively "export a portion of their tax burden to the rest of the nation."

Estimates show that by sheltering state and local taxpayers from the spending decisions of their lawmakers, the deduction encourages anywhere between 2 and 20.5 percent more spending. Not surprisingly, the deduction distorts the financing decisions made by state and local lawmakers. In 2016, for instance, Alaska Gov. Bill Walker cited SALT as instrumental in proposing a hike in income taxes over a hike in the sales tax. He said, "We selected an income tax over a sales tax for a couple of reasons. … State income taxes are deductible from your federal taxes."

Translation: "Thanks to SALT, we can increase your taxes without upsetting you as much as we should." You don't have to be a genius to understand that when taxpayers are less vigilant about policy changes and lawmakers' spending behaviors, we don't get the best policies implemented.

Just ask New Jersey, whose black hole of public employee pension debt keeps getting worse while thousands of retired public employees earn six-figure pensions at taxpayers' expense. That's what they're trying to protect with this lawsuit.

Cuomo complains that it will make New York "less competitive" than other states. You know how to fix that? Lower your tax rates!

Read the lawsuit here.

NEXT: A Texas Man Is Executed Even After His Victim's Family Pleads for His Life

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hahahahahahahahahahaha

    1. Yeah, me too. I’m so broken-hearted the Blues can’t soak the rich at the expense of the rest of the country’s tax payaers.

    2. “Elections have consequences”

  2. This lawsuit will be about as successful as a new movie starring Liza Minnelli and Olympia Dukakis.

    Why not sue Trump’s hair? Or the sky for being blue? Just as useful

    1. Are you referring to,the forthcoming blockbuster “Too Many Grandmas”?

    2. Lawsuits like this aren’t intended to prevail on the merits. They’re merely intended to give some activist judge an opportunity to rule his preferred policy is mandated by the Constitution.

      1. Oh to be the judge these assholes draw, dismissal with prejudice and sanctions!

    3. When you’re a new York Pol, you can use the people’s money for your virtue signalling.

  3. Man, those proggies were all about increasing taxes until they actually had to pay them. Anyone surprised? Me neither

    1. NIMBP = Not In My Back Pocket

    2. You mean til somebody else’s money turned out to be their own. Like a wormhole suddenly appeared linking my pocket right back to theirs.

    3. “Between you and me, we have one pussy and two boobs. We need to redistribute their use so everybody gets their fair share!”

  4. Comment that they have nothing on this ans Reason delivers.

    This suit should be laughed out of court. It is not my job to fund mega rich NY citizens.

    All of this to protect the richest of the rich.

    1. All of this to try to retain the richest. Changing state of residence is really easy for the truly rich.

      1. True. They will profess their love of NY…but will leave and fuck up other NE states happily.

        1. They will profess their love of NY…but will leave and fuck up other NE states happily.

          You seem confused about state income tax rates.

          1. State income tax rates have zero to do with federal tax rates.

            1. And your comment has zero to do with mine.

              1. You got punked out by LC1789. Hang your head in shame

                1. Is it just me, or has loveprostitution moved from being fairly right-wing but still sane to a complete Trump cockgobbler?

                  1. He’s never been sane, and always been suffering from Trump Fellation Syndrome. To be fair, though, the only right winger on here that does not appear to be a TFS sufferer is Just Sayin’. That guy is all right with me. Eddie is cool, too. Sorry if I am forgetting anyone.

                    1. Thankfully we have wokatarians like you to show us the enlightened way of the Paris accord and the freedom from want granted by the UBI.

                2. No… I think her point was supposed to be how other New England states taxes are likely not exceedingly competitive to New York’s. (I have no idea what the relative tax rates in New England are, but if you told me they tended to average more Democrat driven and higher, I wouldn’t find that a shocking revelation, except for NH, perhaps.)

                  And it’s true. If this stays the law, and NY doesn’t lower their state taxes, I would expect the truly rich to move somewhere without state income taxes at all, instead of just a move to a slightly lower jurisdiction. I mean, if you have to move at all, might as well just up and do it the right way.

                  1. the truly rich to move somewhere

                    This is what it’s all about – those guys pay the lion’s share of state taxes and if they leave, the jig is up. NYC turns into Detroit.

                  2. the truly rich to move somewhere

                    This is what it’s all about – those guys pay the lion’s share of state taxes and if they leave, the jig is up. NYC turns into Detroit.

                    1. “those guys pay the lion’s share of state taxes and if they leave”

                      Not really. The true 1% don’t pay all that much (relatively speaking) because the tax code is pretty much written for them. Most of their wealth/earnings are not subject to (much) state income tax. Yes they’ll now take a Federal hit for the real property taxes, but whether they ‘reside’ in NY of FL none of that changes. The only way that changes is if they unload the properties.

                      It is the upper middle to lower upper class who are going to bear the brunt of this – they can’t easily relocate, so really can’t dodge the full brunt of state income taxes. That’s also a large group of voters. Enough to swing elections. So that’s why the pols are throwing everything against the wall.

                  3. No… I think her point was supposed to be how other New England states taxes are likely not exceedingly competitive to New York’s.

                    Correct.

                  4. There’s been a drumbeat about how the rich will leave New York, San Francisco, and Seattle for decades. Yet, somehow, Mississippi still has the lowest income.

                    It really pisses off the libertarians how many successful businesses choose to locate in San Francisco, New York, and Seattle. It’s almost like the low tax, low service model isn’t actually the path to riches!

                    1. I wonder if you’ve ever considered whether the wealth inspires the high taxation, rather than vice-versa?

                    2. Or maybe that central California offers other advantages relative to central Mississippi. Like a pleasant climate and fucking coastline.

                    3. Amazon is looking to leave seattle.

                    4. All sorts of companies left detroit after it went bankrupt.

                      The only reason that car makers and quicken have not left was because of bailouts.

                      Detroit was a lefty paradise until it was run into the ground by lefties and bankruptcy was the only option.

                    5. It really pisses off the libertarians how many successful businesses choose to locate in San Francisco, New York, and Seattle.

                      Of course, now you have lefties complaining about income inequality and a burgeoning economic caste system emerging in these far-left bugman havens, but we won’t discuss that now, will we?

            2. Totally agree, loveconstitution1789. There’s no guarantee that state taxes will always be deductible on federal tax returns or vice versa.

          2. They fuck up the other states by voting in the same types of politicians that enact higher taxes for high speed rail to nowhere.

        2. I doubt they are moving to New Hampshire unless they own a ski lodge. Most go for the Florida plates on the cars to skip the consequences of their voting records.

  5. the existence of the deductions was itself essentially a subsidy to states like New York and New Jersey

    And the existence of the federal income tax is itself essentially a subsidy to states like Mississippi, New Mexico, Alabama, and Louisiana, which can keep state income taxes artificially low and not face the consequences.

    1. You realize the stupidity in your bad logic here, right?

      1. I’ll try to explain it in prog speak so you may understand:

        “Literally rednecks get higher Medicaid funds (which is the largest federal outlay to the states) because their poor white trash families earn below the national median. Therefore, low cost states will automatically receive higher Medicaid funds, because their median income will be below average. Despite the fact that those poor white trash families are not actually that poor relative to the cost of living. Literally Hitler!”

        What you just complained about is that the Medicaid formula is flawed and the only way to fix it is really to eliminate Medicaid. I doubt you’ll find any complaints here on that proposal.

        1. I disagree. I think we should eliminate medicaid with extreme prejudice.

          1. “extreme prejudice”

            And there we have it. Nick Sarwark the bigot

            1. Say what you will, but I’d love to see an hour of Sarwark having his boy hole getting penetrated by a horse. He’s got that “mate with a horse” face.

              1. So you come in here and call our dear leader a Brony, and you think that this is just going to be okay? You think you can just call people Bronys and no one will take you to task?!?!?

                1. What is a brony?

                  1. A guy who fucks horses, apparently.

                    1. Yes. Specifically, dude’s who want to fuck My Little Pony horses.

                    2. Is that for real?

                    3. I’m not clicking that after hearing about the definition of a “brony”. Thank you anyways

                    4. I thought bronies were about 75% dudes who like the cartoon and 25% dudes who want to fuck the characters in the cartoon.

                      Incidentally, I’ve never watched MLP:FiM. Should I?

                    5. Incidentally, I’ve never watched MLP:FiM. Should I?

                      It’s… surprisingly watchable.

                    6. Oh, bronies are very real. I don’t know how much of it is sexual, though. That’s probably overstated.

                    7. “That’s probably overstated.”

                      Sounds like something a brony would say

                    8. You’ve never heard of Bronies? Where have you been, man?

                      Though I don’t think it’s primarily a sexual thing.

                    9. Somebody hasn’t seen Deadpool.

        2. Correction: you will find a complaint against eliminating Medicaid or even block granting Medicaid funds to the states. Suderman opposed the concept of block granting Medicaid funds to the states for reasons that baffle everyone.

          1. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say they reason his reasons were baffling is because they were bullshit excuses to hide the real reason he opposes block granting of Medicaid.

        3. What you just complained about is that the Medicaid formula is flawed and the only way to fix it is really to eliminate Medicaid.

          Pretty sure I complained about all federal income taxes.

          The composite formula used by WalletHub takes into account “1) federal spending per capita compared with every dollar paid in federal income taxes; 2) the percentage of a state’s annual revenue that comes from federal funding; and 3) the number of federal employees per capita.” That’s a lot more than Medicaid.

          1. Cathy, retirees pay relatively little in taxes yet take money in government spending heavily.

            1. Yes, retirees and red staters are two classes of takers.

              1. Why did palin’s buttplug change his username?

                1. PB still posts here. I think he either cloned himself or underwent some kind on mitosis process where he split into two equally obnoxious people.

                  1. Just two?

              2. There is a simple solution for this. Cut federal spending. Let NY do whatever it wants.

              3. red staters are two classes of takers.

                Red staters aren’t “takers”, they have federal spending shoved upon them, spending most people in those states don’t want. That’s why red staters keep voting to have taxes lowered.

                See, the biggest problem with high taxes isn’t so much the taking of those taxes, it’s the destructive crap state and federal governments use that money for.

          2. “That’s a lot more than Medicaid”

            So I take it that you’re not familiar with the Medicaid system

            1. The fuck? Medicaid plus a bunch of other shit is more than Medicaid.

              1. What “other shit”?

                Medicaid accounts for 90% of this disparity with SNAP and TANF accounting for the bulk of the remainder. Take a guess at how SNAP funds and TANF funds are distribute

                1. Have you still not read this from above?

                  The composite formula used by WalletHub takes into account “1) federal spending per capita compared with every dollar paid in federal income taxes; 2) the percentage of a state’s annual revenue that comes from federal funding; and 3) the number of federal employees per capita.”

                  1. Yeah, but I don’t think you’re getting my point at all.

                    If you zero out Medicaid funds, you’re not going to see any fake subsidy to “red states”. The reverse will be more likely.

                    1. While I seriously doubt that’s the case, even if it is, what’s your point? That people in red states are poor and can’t take care of themselves? I mean, I think I already said that.

                  2. Have you still not read this from above?

                    The composite formula used by WalletHub takes into account “1) federal spending per capita compared with every dollar paid in federal income taxes; 2) the percentage of a state’s annual revenue that comes from federal funding; and 3) the number of federal employees per capita.”

                    And you still don’t get it: that is harmful crap that most people don’t want.

                    You live under the misconception that the federal government spending money “on you” is a good thing, when in fact it is a very bad thing.

        4. Also, lots of elderly retirees want to leave the NE and move South…meaning Medicare funding as well. Lots of military bases since we dont protest them as much as other areas tend to and that is more of the “welfare” those studies cite.

          1. Uh, yes, military bases are welfare. Our standing army isn’t even constitutional.

            1. Now do government jobs outside of the military

              1. Government jobs outside the military are included in the WalletHub composite figure. As I said above.

                1. US Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
                  […]
                  To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
                  To provide and maintain a navy;
                  [….]

                  A standing Army is absolutely Constitutional.

                  The Founders preferred state militias to be called up in case of invasion.

                  The US Army actually only has a dozen or so active divisions with most of its force based on adding state national Guard units to the OOB.

                2. Furthermore, many Founders changed their minds about militias being the answer to national defense when the British attacked the USA again in 1812.

            2. So are you for or against our welfare (read military bases) for Europe and the rest of the world? Cause if you’re okay with one, I don’t see why you would use the other as a cudgel against people that live in red states.

              1. *boom*

              2. I’m 100% anti-military. Standing army should be disbanded.

                1. That’s only a third of the military.

                2. Yet, you’re pro-NATO, which literally makes no sense

                  1. You only assume I’m pro-NATO because I think Putin and Trump are pieces of shit.

                    1. I assumed you were pro-NATO because you lost your shit when Trump took them to task for not paying their required portion.

                      To be fair, that may not have been you though.

                    2. I took Trump to task for being a lying sack of shit, which he is. He seems to have influenced you as well since you say they are “not paying their required portion” when (a) the 2% figure is not a “requirement” and (b) they do not pay the 2% to anyone, it is simply how much of their GDP they are supposed to spend on defense.

                    3. I should have said spending instead of paying.

                      And mind you, I don’t much care if we spend more than other countries. It just bugs me when people complain about us being the world police and then demand that we not reduce our military spending.

                      You, at least, seem like you would like us to reduce it.

                    4. Yes, I would absolutely like us to reduce it.

                      That said, spending what we do spend is what gives the US power, and while Trump might not want to fight for our NATO allies, I also don’t really believe he wants to cede US hegemony to Russia, China, etc. (or spend less on defense).

                    5. when (a) the 2% figure is not a “requirement”

                      It’s an agreed-upon rate by the member states. If it’s not “required,” then 1) they shouldn’t have brought it up to begin with, and 2) shouldn’t have a stroke when the country doing the lion’s share of commitment expects them to live up to it.

                    6. If it’s not “required,” then 1) they shouldn’t have brought it up to begin with, and 2) shouldn’t have a stroke when the country doing the lion’s share of commitment expects them to live up to it.

                      It’s a commitment they have made to reach a target spending level by 2024. It’s currently 2018.

                    7. It’s a commitment they have made to reach a target spending level by 2024. It’s currently 2018.

                      Which makes your limpout about it all the more ridiculous.

                    8. {It’s a commitment they have made to reach a target spending level by 2024. It’s currently 2018.}

                      It’s basically a commitment figure. If you are unwilling to commit the assets you’re likely not combat ready. Consider Germany for instance:

                      South Sudan has a larger army.
                      Only 10 of their 128 frontline fighters are combat ready.
                      Troops have used BROOMSTICKS instead of guns in exercises.
                      Troops have used Mercedes passenger vans instead of APCs in maneuvers.
                      None of their submarines are combat ready.
                      The navy refused delivery of their new frigate for a whole host of reasons including that it lists to port 15 degrees (apparently a feature not a bug or something).

                      And their defense spending is set to DECREASE next year from a whopping one percent of GDP.

                      But Trump is being too harsh or something. If NATO is a good idea then reciprocity is crucial.

                    9. And don’t get me started on Oh! Canada!

                    10. Don’t underestimate broomsticks. They can be painful if used right.

                    11. Wouldn’t someone who is pro-NATO want the NATO members to spend the agreed upon amounts on defense?

                    12. You sound hot.

                  2. Seems to be the norm for her.

                    Standing military is bad but NATO is vital.

                3. I’m 100% anti-your posts. They should be deleted

                  In all seriousness, if we made snowmobiles, snowploughs, snowblowers, snow shovels, rock salt, snow shoes, and snow boots tax deductible, Minnesota would greatly benefit, Florida would not. If we then capped the deductibility of these things WE WOULD NOT BE ‘PUNISHING’ MINNESOTA you twit

        5. There is also the observation that when New Yorkers retire to Florida, they make Florida look like a net recipient of SS and Medicare taxes.

        6. “Vox Progsplained to me that the states with all the military bases and secret government research facilities are really getting ‘welfare” by having those icky installation we NIMBY’s don’t want, and that isn’t fair”

    2. Discredited article.

    3. Actually it’s the spending which is the subsidy.

    4. The solution is the Swiss approach.

      Make the federal tax base a combo of sales, income, property/wealth – rather than a complete reliance on income. All with low/flat marginal rates and designed to raise say 15% of GDP to start – and to drop over time.

      Let the feds and states work behind the scenes to combine the federal and state tax liabilities into a single tax return (which would depend on their residence) so that from a taxpayers perspective, they only have a single compliance load.

      Share that tax info among all the states via an existing/new interstate compact. So that they all know how other states are trying to game the system, freeload – and how they are distorting things and creating their own problems. And most of the enforcement parts of the IRS could also be transferred to that compact – which means they would tend to disappear into the state enforcement mechanisms.

      1. “Let the feds and states work behind the scenes to combine the federal and state tax liabilities into a single tax return (which would depend on their residence) so that from a taxpayers perspective, they only have a single compliance load.”

        Now THIS is a violation of federalism. Why would Texas and Florida join into a compact that would reduce their competitive advantage over their high tax neighbors whose financial positions and demographics are declining perceptively?

        1. A Multistate Tax Commission already exists – and Texas is a full compact member. And every state is a member at some level of involvement. This compact does only tend to focus purely on sales tax and nexus issues – but there’s no reason for that limitation other than that’s how the compact was initially structured.

          Fact is – most states are VERY interested in understanding how their own tax system may create problems on the spending side for themselves – or how it may be making them uncompetitive – or how it may be forcing them into paying tens of billions per year to tax cronies like Amazon to incent a relo decision because they don’t currently have the info they need to develop a better system that can generate growth absent that.

          Reality is that this solution actually reverts a bit to the Articles of Confederation model of raising revenue – where the states themselves were responsible for collecting the fed revenues. What looks on the surface like states being forced to collect and transfer revenues for the feds can actually turn into MORE decentralization precisely because they then know how the two systems actually work from a citizens perspective.

          1. “…or how it may be forcing them into paying tens of billions per year to tax cronies like Amazon to incent a relo decision…”

            JFree has no idea what “force” means, which is no surprise.

            1. And no surprise that you want a big intrusive govt that can deliver goodies to – and only to – the biggest wealthiest cronies

              1. JFree|7.18.18 @ 2:02PM|#
                “And no surprise that you want a big intrusive govt that can deliver goodies to – and only to – the biggest wealthiest cronies”

                I think you’ve posted the dumbest thing possibble and then you prove me wrong.
                Fucking lefty ignoramus…

          2. The distinction you’re missing is that the Multistate Tax Commission is a voluntary association of peer-states. It is not a program mandated by or even led by the federal government.

            A voluntary association of peers is not only allowed, that’s what “federalism” is all about. Having exactly the same actions and decisions made and run by the feds, however, is the antithesis of “federalism”.

            1. A voluntary association of peers is not only allowed, that’s what “federalism” is all about.

              Actually the constitution explicitly PROHIBITS that sort of association – absent an act of Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress… enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State

              So there is a requirement for the feds to get involved in order to help structure the interstate compact. The difference between that and fed takeover is who executes it – the states-in-compact or the executive branch of the fed govt.

              Interstate compact form is a really powerful way of reducing the growth of the exec branch and reducing the ‘mandating’ authority of the feds – without needing to ‘sell’ anarchism/minarchism as a philosophy. The tough question is how much of the federal taxing authority/duties/etc could actually be transferred to the compact form – and would the compact form create cooperation (rather than arrogance) where the feds do need to retain authority

              1. “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress… enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State”

                Wasn’t that meant to prohibit US States from entering into agreements with foreign States?

                Has it actually been established that this prohibits inter-US State compacts? Lots of state have compacts for professional licensure, and I’m not aware of any Federal involvement in those. Similarly many states share their prescription drug monitoring data via compacts.

                1. Wasn’t that meant to prohibit US States from entering into agreements with foreign States?

                  No. The next phrase in the clause is No State shall, without the Consent of Congress… enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign power. So those are clearly separate. And the sovereignty issue re states and foreign states is also addressed elsewhere No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation

                  It may well be that that the ‘consent of Congress’ part of that clause is being interpreted differently now – ie that if Congress doesn’t explicitly object to an agreement/compact then it implicitly consents to anything/everything. But that is really bogus if true. Or maybe the licensing stuff is part of the interstate compact for education.

                  At any rate, the interstate compact could be a great vehicle for a political party interested in actual decentralization and interested in reducing coercion. Think how much easier it would be for Congress to simply transfer the DeptEducation to the above interstate compact, even with ongoing federal funding, and let states themselves decide what’s useful and what’s crap – rather than engage in some multidecade fruitless bs about eliminating the dept to replace with nothing while in the interim the DC swamp mandates/coerces bs re education.

        2. Oh – and the interstate compact is NOT for creating that single tax return. The feds would work with EACH state bilaterally for that. It wouldn’t truly BE a single tax return nationwide. It would merely BE a ‘customized’ tax return that would look different depending on what state (or even county) one lives in

          The interstate compact is only for sharing the data that results from that afterwards.

          1. “Oh – and the interstate compact is NOT for creating that single tax return. The feds would work with EACH state bilaterally for that.”
            So it is exactly for that.

            1. You don’t even actually know what an interstate compact is do you

      2. OR, the feds are only allowed to tax the states and not individuals.

        1. Which would return us to the an apportioned tax, which blue states would also complain about because it would be based off of population. So CA, NY, and IL will still get slammed along with “red states” TX and FL.

          1. Sounds like you’re saying, “Yes, that would be fairer.”

            1. I’d be fine with it, but you’d still complain about it

              1. Note that an apportioned tax would not allow any SALT deductions, so I’m not seeing how you see this as preferable. CA, NY, and IL will continue to have high taxes, except now you’ll get zero relief on those high taxes.

                1. I’m not seeing how you see this as preferable.

                  Because it’s not part of a system that was openly and explicitly created to punish voters in blue states by double-taxing them, for one thing.

                  Because I find a distribution of taxes by population more fair, for another thing.

                  And of course it wouldn’t have deductions for state and local taxes; it wouldn’t be paid by individuals!

                  1. Because it’s not part of a system that was openly and explicitly created to punish voters in blue states by double-taxing them, for one thing.

                    Who is “double taxing” them?

                    If you accept the legitimacy of federal income taxes — and, with an Amendment and all, we have to at this point — then the double taxation is done by the state. The ones that, mind you, are bitching now and you’re defending.

                    1. If you accept the legitimacy of federal income taxes — and, with an Amendment and all, we have to at this point — then the double taxation is done by the state.

                      That’s complete nonsense. Just because federal taxes exist under a constitutional regime doesn’t make them somehow primary, and the fact that the federal tax code previously allowed deductions for state and local income taxes suggests that it’s the federal income tax that has customarily been viewed and treated as secondary.

                    2. That’s complete nonsense. Just because federal taxes exist under a constitutional regime doesn’t make them somehow primary

                      The Feds have zero control over state taxes. Whatever the state taxes you is the state’s choice alone. The Feds just said “We will allow you to deduct up to 10,000 for that”.

                      If it is more, they have a state assembly to address their grievances with.

                      the fact that the federal tax code previously allowed deductions for state and local income taxes suggests that it’s the federal income tax that has customarily been viewed and treated as secondary.

                      A courtesy is a courtesy. It is nothing more than a courtesy.

                      If they decided to nullify ALL deductions for state taxes, there would still be zero legal ground here to sue.

                      …then again, this is the same state whose governor threatened to sue if the SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade, so legal geniuses aren’t in high order in the leadership there.

                    3. A courtesy is a courtesy. It is nothing more than a courtesy.

                      In an iron-fisted tyranny, sure.

                      The point is that between state and fed taxes, one of them has to be primary. If I can’t deduct SALT from my Fed, then I should be able to deduct my Fed from my SALT.

                      Otherwise, imagine that both want 60% of my income, and neither is deductible from the other. How can I possibly comply with that?

                    4. re: “one of them has to be primary.”

                      Nope. The very idea of the dual-sovereignty model is that the federal and state governments are peers and their taxation is independent. Both can tax your income at any amount. And both can allow any deductions or none.

                      Yes, this does lead to the silly hypothetical where both the feds and the state want more than half your income and you are physically unable to comply with both. The control the Founders gave us is not a guarantee of deductibility but the power to vote out whatever morons tried to impose such a scheme.

                    5. The point is that between state and fed taxes, one of them has to be primary. If I can’t deduct SALT from my Fed, then I should be able to deduct my Fed from my SALT.

                      Then demand your state do that.

                      Don’t demand that I must subsidize your state’s taxes. I have no representation in how your state passes its taxes. If I have to subsidize them, then I should have a vote in them.

          2. nah, the feds get a percentage of the ‘income’ of the states.

          3. If it was based on population, it would basically be a uniform tax. So we can look at per-capita rates.

            As of FY 2015, the overall per-capita federal tax revenue was $10,234.

            That same year, the per-capita federal tax revenue for CA, NY and IL were (in order) $10,408, $13,659 and $12,310.

            So if the federal tax burden were split up between states (instead of citizens) along population-proportional lines, those three states would all see a drop in their federal tax burden.

            The five states that would see the biggest drop in their federal tax burden would be (all numbers based on FY2015) Delaware ($23,982), Minnesota ($19,504), New Jersey ($17,226), Connecticut ($16,507) and Massachusetts ($15,927).

            The five states that would see the biggest increase in their federal tax burden would be (all numbers based on FY2015) Mississippi ($3,836), West Virginia ($4,005), New Mexico ($4,312), South Carolina ($4,921), and Alabama ($5,165).

            The four states closest to the “break-even” line are Washington ($10,242), Texas ($10,204), North Dakota ($10,189), California ($10,408) and Missouri ($10,551).

            Florida (not already listed) would see a tax increase as it’s FY2015 per capita federal tax burden was $8,762.

            Unless you had something in mind that wouldn’t effectively be a uniform tax?

        2. Taxing the states directly would prob work for the property/wealth part of the tax base. But the slew of corporate case law – from Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific onwards – creates a ton of problems re how to deal with those entities that are easily able to transcend and manipulate states.

          That said – being able to limit and focus federal enforcement authority solely on those interstate entities by transferring the rest of it to an interstate compact – would be a huge benefit for 95% of the population

        3. Because the first Articles of Confederation worked out so well…

    5. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, New Mexico state income taxes are not that low. They’re all pretty average, in the 4% range for most incomes. It’s true they’re lower than New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, but those are some of the highest.

      1. And apparently, for those states to maintain the same standard of living they currently have, they would have to be a lot higher than 4%.

        1. They absolutely would not. How do taxes create a “standard of living”?

          Even when SALT wasn’t capped CA, IL, and NJ still had high taxes and dreadfully poor financial positions. I’m sorry, but progressives are absolutely terrible at accounting and economics. That’s their problem- not TX’s

          1. Are you suggesting that the infrastructure and jobs funded with federal money could just disappear and not diminish the standard of living in those states? Yank all the federal buildings and military bases and that’s not going to put a dent in the state’s economy?

            1. no, its not. not that their removal wouldn’t be noticed but out here in AZ the majority of bases and federal buildings are in Tucson and Phoenix – wjich are thriving cities on their own and not dependent on government largesse.

              contrast that to a place like groton ct – which would cease to exist if Electric Boat moved.

        2. are you seriously suggesting that *taxes* are the predominate determiner of QoL?

          1. I don’t think anyone would argue that directly.

            The argument you’re more likely to see is that tax spending (which of course relies on taxes) creates a quality-of-life floor which it is difficult to fall beneath.

            That said, there are certainly some areas that, absent tax spending, would cease being economical to live in. This ranges from the big and obvious (big military towns) to the hidden (towns that only survive on Social Secuirty and Medicare).

            So it’s not that taxes are the predominate determination for Quality of Life. But it is an enabling factor for tax-spending, which in many communities, particularly communities that are not independently viable, it creates a Quality of Life floor.

            Or to put it another way… if it weren’t for government spending, Flint, Michigan would have become a ghost town when it’s water supply problems became public knowledge. But because people keep throwing money at the problem, it’s kept (aha) afloat.

            All of which is separate from whether or not it’s a good idea.

            1. Related to that is both taxes and spending can create huge economic distortions. And it’s not just a simple matter of assuming that all forms of taxes and all categories of spending create identical distortions – because they clearly don’t.

              Those distortions are definitely part of a broader ‘quality of life’.

              The obvious example. Many states have a regressive tax system. And they spend money not on actually creating an infrastructure that enhances opportunity at the bottom (where that regressive system might be justified as a ‘flat universal tax’) but merely to distribute just enough crumbs to both keep people quiet and prevent them from moving. In some cases, that combo is also deliberately punitive.

              1. JFree just figured out the progressives strategy, aka the war on poverty

    6. OK. So eliminate the Federal Income tax. I’m OK with that solution, too.

  6. The reduced SALT deductions don’t affect all states equally and that this all has been done to punish “blue” states.

    Of course, the legislative history also proves this wrong. The law was specifically changed as a political punishment for blue states. That’s why you can still deduct up to $10k in property taxes. Because that’s all poor people in red states need to avoid double taxation. Which libertarians are now in favor of.

    1. You can also deduct up to $10K in state taxes.

    2. Woketarians for tax subsidies.

      A moral failing and a brain disease

      1. I thought Cathy was making a pretty good point, but then you called her names and now I’m all turned around on the matter.

        1. You win this round, Hugh. My apologies

        2. Hey, how else is he supposed to win an argument with a logically consistent opponent?

          1. In other words, what would robby say?

      2. Libertarians for double-taxation!

        1. You are only being taxed by the state levying the rate. There is no reason why other states need to subsidize your high rate. This is really a backdoor attempt to prop-up over bloated high tax states

          1. Indeed.

          2. You are only being taxed by the state levying the rate.

            And by the federal government.

            There is no reason why other states need to subsidize your high rate.

            And there’s no reason why I need to subsidize lower state income taxes in red states.

            This is really a backdoor attempt to prop-up over bloated high tax states

            No, it’s a front-door attempt to punish voters in blue states because they can’t do anything for Trump.

            1. “And there’s no reason why I need to subsidize lower state income taxes in red states.”

              You are absolutely not subsidizing them

              1. You just keep saying that, yet the federal government transfers a bunch of money from blue states to red ones.

                1. Re-read my comment about Medicaid. This is what you are complaining about. Your argument that blue states are “subsidizing” red states is rather bad and ignorant. Read a state CAFR sometime. Any state CAFR. Just one, at least.

                  You know for someone who accuses everyone else of being a Republican, you sure seem to parrot a lot of progressive talking points

                  1. Medicaid is not the only thing I’m complaining about. Not sure why that’s so hard to understand.

                2. You just keep saying that, yet the federal government transfers a bunch of money from blue states to red ones.

                  And we’ve already explained how. Your “study” is laughable bullshit made by people who’d bitch if anything was done to change it outside of “SUBSIDIZE MAH TAXES!!!”

                  You’re aware that the states have near absolute power to lower their taxes and spending. If Cuomo wants to protect their rich so much, cut programs for the poor in NY to show the poor where they stand with modern Progressivism.

                3. When, exactly, did New Mexico become a red state?

                  1. And Hawaii.

              2. The libertarian response to anyone whinging about the Federal government ‘subsidizing’ anything is to recommend that the Federal government stop spending money of whatever is being ‘subsidized.’

                Because, rest assured, it sure as Hell is not anything the Federal government should be providing.

            2. “And there’s no reason why I need to subsidize lower state income taxes in red states.”

              You’re not. And that is without holding progressive states responsible for the damage they do to the country through their socialist policies.

        2. Cathy L is right. We should end state taxes and federal taxes. No more double taxation.

          Commence Lefty screams in 3…2….1…

          1. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH

            I JUST REALIZED WE’RE ALL MOVING THROUGH SPACE AT INCREDIBLE SPEEDS

            1. Wait until you figure out that we’re going in multiple directions.

            2. No dude, we’re npt moving – everything else is!

            3. Dude, I just felt a neutrino. Right in my taint.

            4. BUCS, you’re not a Lefty.

              Admit it. You just wanted to scream about interplanetary movement.

              1. AAAAAAAAHHHHH

                I’M PRETTY SURE I EXPLICITLY STATED WHY I WAS SCREAMING IN MY PREVIOUS POST

            5. That. Right there. Funny as shit.

          2. Commence LeftyAmerican screams in 3…2….1…

            FIFY.

            As we repeatedly see, over and over, damn near everyone is in favor of government taxation and spending. What people disagree on is who should be taxed (the other guy!) and what should be funded (my pet project!).

            Cut all taxes (and all spending) and it won’t just be “leftys” that are screaming, it’ll be conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, and damn-near everyone in between.

            1. Cut all taxes (and all spending) and it won’t just be “leftys” that are screaming, it’ll be conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, and damn-near everyone in between.

              Yes, but libertarians will be smiling.

        3. Libertarians for double-taxation!

          Cathy apparently believes that every state has an income tax.

      3. Woketarian progressives for tax subsidies for the 1%!

    3. No, the point is that blue states subsidize their taxation through federal tax deduction. The tax reform bill put a stop to that.

      1. And red states subsidize their nontaxation through federal tax revenues.

        1. That really isn’t true. Just a Media Matters talking point.

          1. Yeah, states that get more revenue from the federal government wouldn’t suffer at all if they didn’t get that revenue, and definitely wouldn’t have to raise their own taxes to make up some of the difference. That’s crazy.

            1. Ok, so cut spending and let the states decide what they want to do easier than have programs dictated by the federal government

              1. Sounds great. I’m all for eliminating the federal income tax.

            2. Cathy, stop. Your claim is debunked bullshit. The fact is that blue states receive higher federal funding per capita than red states.

              Blue states are inherently parasitic. So just admit you’re wrong.

              1. You keep saying it’s debunked and providing zero reason to believe you.

                1. As opposed to the evidence you’ve provided…

                2. You make unsubstantiated claims, yet protest when I point this out. That I somehow owe you proof where you have provided none.

        2. States don’t pay federal income taxes individuals do.

          So for a given income the low SALT resident pays more than the high SALT resident. Maybe Cuomo should sue himself?

          1. States don’t pay federal income taxes individuals do

            This is what so many people seem to forget, or at least are determined to ignore.

        3. States don’t pay federal income taxes individuals do.

          So for a given income the low SALT resident pays more than the high SALT resident. Maybe Cuomo should sue himself?

    4. Sheep entrails also prove your argument, in much the same way.

    5. Why do you want middle class people to lose their homes, Cathy L?

      Just using the progressive weapons against them.

    6. So you’re saying we should eliminate SALT deductions entirely? I’ll support that.

    7. I believe they used the term “incentive”.

      1. Incentives that we don’t like are fucking coercion man. Coercion we like is just an incentive, you can always opt for the consequences. /proglodyte

    8. Here’s an idea: Get those states to stop collecting an income tax.

      You know, since income tax is immoral as fuck.

      1. I also have an idea. End the federal income tax.

        1. Why just the federal? Is a state income tax somehow different?

          1. I didn’t say “just” the federal.

            1. The person above you didn’t qualify “income tax” with “federal”, you did. So it seemed you were speaking only to it.

              Or are you not bright enough to follow all of that?

              1. DesigNate literally said

                Get those states to stop collecting an income tax.

                The follow-up line is a justification, but not a call to action.

                1. Clearly “End the federal income tax” is not a call to action.

                  1. “End the federal income tax” was written by Cathy L, not DesigNate.

        2. We can definitely agree on that!

        3. That’s a great idea. You obviously believe this because you want to stop the “subsidy” which is flowing to the red states, as you say. Sort of, – we will give them what they are asking for. Except if you really believe it will stop the red state parasitism, then why are all the blue states not lining up agreeing with you???

    9. Apparently Cathy doesn’t think poor people exist in blue states.

    10. It is a truism that any limit to the SALT deduction will impact those states that have SALT above the threshold.

      It was only a few years ago that the Feds began allowing the deduction of sales tax in an effort to be more balanced between those states that raise revenue through sales taxes vs income taxes.

      Why don’t we flip this around? No federal deductions for state and local taxes. States can would then allow deductions for federal taxes as they see fit.

      1. States are currently free to allow deductions for federal taxes.

    11. “That’s why you can still deduct up to $10k in property taxes. ”

      In Progressitopia, allowing any federal deductions is racist. Or something.

    12. As it was under the old system, someone making $300K in New York pays $6K less in federal Income Tax than someone making $300K in Tennessee.

      Explain how that is fair

  7. This gives lie to the concept that ‘Blue states are givers, red states are takers…’

    1. Yes, it certainly is a lie.

    2. No, it doesn’t. It just proves red states want to suck even more of their blood than they already were.

      1. You have to look at a state CAFR sometime, in all honesty

      2. I thought good little liberals like you were all for the 1% paying their fair share?

        1. Well, since I’m not a liberal, I’m not in favor of taxation at all.

          1. My apologies.

            1. Dont be fooled. Cathy L is for complete government seizure of all property.

              No need for taxation.

      3. I would like to point out that it was allthose blue states that demanded all these programs that red states can’t afford – for the greater good.

        If you’re going to offer your neck to a vampire, don’t be surprised when he bites.

        Personally, I’ve got no problem with ending all these blue state subsidies – but the blue staters insist on them.

        1. Yes, all those blue states insisting on higher defense spending, right.

          1. yes. where do you think the most densely populated and expensive bases are – blue states.

            CA, WA, CT, etc.

            You know the most common base types out here in the west? They’re training ranges with small permanent staffs.

          2. Yes, all those blue states insisting on higher defense spending, right.

            Cathy apparently thinks blue states don’t rely on defense spending.

            1. And that defense spending is the largest part of the federal budget.

              1. It’s at least 150% isn’t it?

            2. Hell, without military spending, VA is hardly an economic power of any sort.

      4. then why don’t the blue states put an end to it, they are the ones pushing the higher taxes

  8. I jizzed in my coffee this morning; I recommend it.

    1. No wonder you’re so damn salty.

    2. Sure, I’ll jizz in your coffee .

  9. So by their reasoning, the deductions were unconstitutional because they benefited us, and so they must remain.

    Did I get that right?

  10. Cue Lefty apologists for these 4 states in 3….2….1….

  11. “But here’s what they’re essentially arguing: The reduced SALT deductions don’t affect all states equally and that this all has been done to punish “blue” states. As New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said yesterday, “this is their political attempt to hurt Democratic states. It is totally repugnant and hypocritical of the fundamental conservative ideology which they preach.”

    The tax code doesn’t treat everyone exactly equally?

    I guess Cuomo junior is a little slow on the uptake since the income tax code has been that way since 1913 when the 16th Amendment was ratified.

    I don’t recall him or any of the other leftists ever complaining about the “progressive” nature of the tax code that most certainly does not treat all people exactly equally. Of any of the myriad provisions of deductions/exemptions that carve out special benefits for certain groups and engage in social engineering schemes that don’t treat everyone exactly equally.

    But if the Cuomo and the other members of the American Communist Party (aka Democrats) have a sudden new found respect for equal treatment we can accommodate them by repealing the entire tax existing tax code and replacing it with a pure flat rate tax with no exemptions, deductions or other adjustments of any type for anyone under any circumstance.

    If such a thing were ever enacted they would all howl like banshees about how “unfair” it was to treat everyone equally.

  12. I have no debt and can’t itemize. I report file short form,so,screw them. Don’t live beyond your means. I also have as little taken out as possible with out having to pay at year’s end.

  13. I live in Maryland and I thought I was getting royally fucked, but I didn’t realize that it wasn’t a full ban and it’s just a cap. And I don’t come close to paying $10k in state income taxes, so I’ll actually be fine. *shrugs* What, me worry?

    1. What are your property taxes like?

      1. My property taxes suck. ( Anything above 0 sucks.) How about you?

        1. Right? The two most immoral taxes, personal income and primary residence, are the government’s bread and butter and they aren’t going anywhere.

      2. Pretty lame. Some of the highest in the country, but not $10k (yet). If the $10k limit is on a combination of income and property taxes, then I think I’m still under $10k, but I wonder when I might go over.

      3. Wait a minute. I just realized that I’m probably not going to be able to itemize beyond the $12k standard deduction anyway. Motherfucker!

  14. This is a pretty ridiculous argument.

    Is Cuomo planning to run for president? He seems to love grandstanding that will get him national attention. Or is this just to shore up the base for reelection?

    1. Isn’t some celebrity trying to primary him?

      1. The chick from Booty and the Borough is trying to oust him.

    2. Cuomo’s been running for president since birth.

      1. And he’s no closer to the finish line. Snails cover more distance in that amount of time.

  15. Federalism?

    That’s just Democracy in Chains.

  16. So I take it this means that “federalism” and “state’s rights” is no longer a racist dog whistle? Or is it only racist when non-progressives use it?

    1. I did chuckle when I saw them using that as justification.

    2. Totally depends on if the left likes it or hates it.

  17. I’ll go out on a limb here and say that I don’t think their argument is actually all that ridiculous. This does seem like an attempt by the federal government to influence state policy, and I do think there is case to be made that that goes against federalist principles. At the same time, it’s not the *only* possible justification for the SALT cap, and the federal government isn’t responsible for state tax policy. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

    1. The argument seems iffy to me because I don’t think the legislative history does support that this policy is an attempt to influence state policy. It was just an attempt to fuck certain states, regardless of what they did in response.

      1. The old system fucked certain states, you imbecile

        Someone who made $320K in New York paid $6K less in federal Income Tax than someone who made $320K in Tennessee

    2. influence state policy

      It would need to be a specific influence. It can’t simply be “hey, you might want to do the same thing, but differently” and be considered a substantive influence.

      1. Assuming they can successfully argue that it was an attempt to get these states to lower their taxes, is that specific enough? Honest question – I don’t know the legal thinking on this.

        1. The Federal government cannot coerce a state into doing something specific. But not having a particular tax at a particular level, absent a specific instruction in this regard, can’t possibly be seen as unduly forcing a state to enact a specific policy.

          1. re: “The Federal government cannot coerce a state into doing something specific.”

            Sure they can. See above about speed limits, drinking ages and a hundred other examples. What they can’t do is compel a state to do something specific.

            I can (legally) coerce you into working more by, for example, offering you more pay or tying your work to some other thing you want. I can not compel you to work more without violating the anti-slavery laws.

            1. Yup.
              Mothers Against Drunk Driving got Congress to tie Federal Highway funds to a 21yo Drinking Age in the 80s. It ruined going to New Orleans for college kids.

        2. But this would be like saying “Me not giving you money means I am trying to make you spend less” instead of simply “I do not want to give you money and I need no reason to not do so”.

          Never before have so many been so angry at very rich folks paying taxes.

    3. “This does seem like an attempt by the federal government to influence state policy”

      You mean like when the feds withheld federal highway funds from states that didn’t adopt the 55 mph speed limit?

      The feds try to influence what the states do all the time.

      1. ^^^ This

        How that Real ID Act coming along?

        1. Over a decade late at this point, isn’t it? That’s not a great example of the fed successfully influencing states, it’s an example of states resisting the fed.

      2. Hey, I’d love to see someone sue to overturn that too!

      3. 21yo drinking age, anyone?

        1. Ha! I narrowly missed that one. I turned 18 when it was still legal in Louisiana, then I turned 21 right after they finally succumbed to the pressure and upped the age.

    4. What?

      Lets look at the net federal income tax paid before SALT restrictions. A person of a given income paid less in the high tax blue states. That was indeed unequal. Why the fuck am I subsidizing high state tax folks?

      If they don;t like their high state taxes vote idiots like Cuomo out.

    5. Curious how the Medicaid expansion precedent fits in.
      Congress passed a law changing Medicaid. Being a state program, states had a choice to take the new program or not. John Roberts decided that it was too coercive a deal, and the federal government had to offer the old program, too.

      Isn’t this change just as coercive as the change to Medicaid?

  18. Lower your tax rates!

    Can’t; cronyin’!

  19. “”But here’s what they’re essentially arguing: The reduced SALT deductions don’t affect all states equally and that this all has been done to punish “blue” states””

    I think “blue” = rich.

    I wonder what my new congressperson thinks about this. Why should the rich get such a tax deduction in the first place? It seems that would be against her socialist stance.

  20. How do the states have standing? What material “harm” has befallen the states in question. What individuals are allowed to deduct on the US Federal Income tax return has absolutely no basis in the amount to be collected from by the States in the lawsuit? Can someone explain this a little better than what is in the article by the OP

    1. Good point. I’d also argue that harm would be impossible since the state controls their own taxation in any manner they see fit. I cannot fathom a Constitutional argument that states Alabama must subsidize NY’s generous pensions for its government retirees.

    2. Standing? We don’t need no steenkeen standing!

  21. this is their political attempt to hurt Democratic states

    Cracka, please. Team Blue controlled states do that to themselves.

  22. States have no standing. They do not pay taxes or experience deductions.

    1. You sir have a logic problem, you expect it where it does not exist

    2. As a legal matter, states do have standing in certain circumstances to represent the interests of their citizens. The legal term is parens patriae.

      While I think this is a frivolous lawsuit, your standing argument against it is a loser.

  23. I distinctly remember that a certain Matt “Welchie Boy” Welch from Brooklyn Heights or Park Slope or something was especially pissed off when his blue state federal subsidy went away.

    1. That’s interesting because with the increased standard deduction, you have to be making over something like 120K to actually suffer from the SALT cap. Which is not a fortune here but it is well above the individual average income.

  24. …the change in deduction laws may, as a consequence, force these states to change their tax laws and possibly their state spending.

    They’ll hemorrhage a lot of wealthy taxpayers before they make any significant change.

    1. I’ll take forcing changes in behavior as a legitimate rationale for declaring a law unconstitutional as long as we get to do a complete review of the last 80 years or so at all levels of government.

  25. Who elects these dopes?

  26. Who elects these dopes?

  27. All these idiots like Cathy arguing “blue sates pay more than red states”. States don’t pay federal income taxes individuals do.

    Duhhhhh

    For the same income a person with low SALT will pay more federal income tax than a person with high SALT. So why should someone in a low SALT area pay more? They don’t get any of the SALT services.

    I get zero benefits form the high NY state and local taxes. That should not be my problem.

    1. ll these idiots like Cathy arguing “blue sates pay more than red states”. States don’t pay federal income taxes individuals do.

      Didn’t you know that the state government has a claim to the income of all residents of that state? I’ll bet you had some quaint idea that indentured servitude was illegal or something.

  28. Their logic is so strange. To say that the change to the law disproportionately hurts their states also means that the existing law disproportionately benefits those states.

    1. SALT benefits those in high SALT states. Its pretty simple.They pay less tax for a given income.

  29. Per capita federal spending, by state, federal fiscal 2013

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..g_by_state

    You will be shocked to find DC, VA and MD at the top of the list.

    Most states seem to be within 10% of the mean.

    MA and CT are 10% higher than NY, which is 10% higher than TX or CA.

    I am not seeing an obvious pattern.

    1. Because there is no pattern. You are trying to equate two unrelated variables. Those with high SALT pay lower federal taxes than those with low SALT.

      SALT pays for state and local stuff. Federal pays for federal stuff.

      So high SALT folks should get more state and local services. They pay less for federal services. An example of a federal service is national defense.

      NY folks contribute less to national defense than low SALT folks of the same income. Cuomo has it backwards. His residents are getting the subsidy

      1. Getting the “subsidy”, and still paying more per capita. How unfair.

        1. What?
          The only way you pay more is if you make more
          So you are for a head tax? Per capita?
          That not how the tax system works duhhhhhh
          I’m mean the dumb shitedness is ridiculous
          Sure let’s do it

      2. NY folks contribute less to national defense than low SALT folks of the same income.

        Only if you look at it from one particular angle with your eyes squinted a little.

        Someone who makes $80k/year in NYC is paying less directly to the FedGov than someone who makes $80k a year in MS.

        But

        If you make $80k/year in NYC, you are poor. Making the same in MS you are considerably more affluent. And there are far fewer of you.

        In the aggregate, what NY contributes to national defense is considerably more than what MS does.

        1. Jesus what a dumb shit reply.

          Two folks making the same income and one pays less federal income tax because of higher SALT

          Thus one guy gets his state and local subsidized by the low SALT guy

          Seriously don’t be retarded

        2. Neither NY or MS pay any federal income taxes . Stated don’t pay federal income taxes

          Individuals pay federal income taxes

          Do you work at being this stupid?

    2. I am not seeing an obvious pattern.

      That’s because the entire federal spending v taxes paid argument is a bunch of shit. It was created by a cronyist in the run-up to WW2 to justify his cronyism because his state didn’t have as much pork as the state of the guy who was opposing his pork program. And the argument has only deteriorated from then – as most of the comments indicate.

      Just to give the obvious sort of example of how stupid this shit is – one community that is forced to accept a toxic waste dump is NOT comparable to a second community that gets a subsidized golf course – and the amount spent on the two projects is beyond irrelevant.

  30. It really undermines your ability to claim you’re anti-tax when you cheer so much to see congress take deliberate action to raise effective tax rates on a certain class of citizen.

    1. I agree, but “fuck the Blue States” seems to trump whatever one may think about taxes.

      1. So stop fucking yourselves you idiot
        Lower your SALT

      2. You will probably get horrible diseases if you do that to blue states.

    2. Enjoying the spectacle of liberals getting fucked by the very policy they pimp is hardly a refutation that lower taxes are desirable, shitlib.

  31. So the left who wants to use government via the Federal government as well as the supreme court to run the land is saying this bs, “…interfering with the States’ sovereign authority to make their own choices …”

    Who would have thunk it.

  32. Man, Cuomo is one angry commie.

    Calm down man, smoke a doobie and chill, bro….

  33. This should take about a two-paragraph reply brief to get the lawsuit thrown out.

    The short version – if it’s a violation of federalism to take away the SALT deduction, why wasn’t it a violation of federalism to allow the SALT deduction in the first place? By their own legal theory, the best they can argue is to eliminate the SALT deduction entirely. There is no logical way their legal theory supports a return to the old SALT rules.

    I really wish we had a workable system to punish the people who bring these silly lawsuits.

    1. The Living Constitution has a Higher Logic

    2. If my reading of the argument is right, the argument isn’t that it’s a violation to take away the SALT deduction per se, but it’s a violation in this case because of the motivations.

      For example, if tax reform had eliminated the SALT deduction along with the property tax deduction, thus hitting most states pretty equally instead of just some states, it probably would be fine. But by deliberately making a change to “punish” certain states the law now has an improper motivation that calls it’s legitimacy into doubt.

      There’s a bunch of SCOTUS precedent about this, that animus is not a valid justification for legislation.

      1. Animus against pornographers? Animus against drunk teenagers? Animus against gas guzzlers? Animus against bigamists?

        Animus is the source of 90% of legislation.

        But, I repeat, THIS MERELY CORRECTS A PREVIOUSLY UNFAIR SUBSIDY ENJOYED BY RESIDENTS OF HIGH TAX STATES

    3. “By their own legal theory, the best they can argue is to eliminate the SALT deduction entirely.”

      And that is precisely how I hope the court sees and rules it.

  34. The closest thingy thing the U.S. has to Marxism is Taxes. In other words Taxes is the closest thingy thing the US has to Marxism.

  35. The $10,000 exemption is the unfair part. Everyone should have to participate in paying this crap twice.

  36. The $10,000 exemption is the unfair part. Everyone should have to participate in paying this crap twice.

    1. Irony!

  37. I’m so old, I remember when we were supposed to tax the rich.

  38. This is essentially the same logic as “These Tax Cuts disproportionally benefits the people who pay the taxes”

  39. It’s all the more ironic that these liberal states are actually defending tax cuts for the rich. It does not impact lower income people because of the increased standard deduction. The progressive tax rates will bite them in the butt when more high earners keep leaving instead of continuing to have their pockets emptied.

  40. No reason someone in NY earning the same amount as someone in Texas should pay lower federal income taxes.

  41. “Double taxation” is one way to look at it. Another is “tax on tax”.

    1. “Double taxation” is just a bookkeeping technicality and ignorant rhetoric to trick people into thinking whatever it is must be bad. You pay so much to federal and so much to the state. If there were no “double taxation” and the rates adjusted so you pay the same amounts anyway, it would not make things any better or worse.

    2. A state tax and a federal tax is two taxes, not double taxation.
      Double taxation is sales tax on the gasoline tax.

  42. So the democrats do not want taxes that hit the rich harder than the not so rich?
    So the democrats do not want tax cuts for the working man?
    So the democrats do not think anyone actually keeps track of what they say and compares it to what they do?
    So the democrats do not think?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.