The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Blue State Challenge to Cap on SALT Deduction
An utterly meritless suit ends not with a bang, but a whimper.
This morning, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in New York v. Yellen without comment or noted objection. This should not be a surprise to anyone, and puts an end to one of the more fanciful legal claims put forward by state attorneys general.
This case involved a challenge to portions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which capped the income tax deduction for state and local taxes. This reform had a disproportionate impact on wealthier taxpayers and on taxpayers in Blue states because they tend to have higher property taxes and income taxes.
New York and several other Blue states sought to argue that capping the SALT deduction was unconstitutional and contravened Supreme Court precedent. As I noted here (and Ilya Somin discussed here), the arguments put forward in defense of this proposition were laughably bad. There is nothing remotely unconstitutional about the decision to offer or rescind federal income tax deductions for state and local taxes. Although the case was heard by a fairly liberal district court judge, and a quite liberal three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the legal theories asserted by New York, et al. could not attract a single vote. Indeed, as the lower court opinions made abundantly clear, not a single judge even thought the claims presented a close question.
Now that this lawsuit is over, taxpayers in the plaintiff states no longer have to worry about the squandering of their tax dollars on this utterly meritless litigation, and tax law professor Andy Grewal can rest easy, as he is no longer at any risk of having to post a video of himself "eating every single page of the Internal Revenue Code, one-by-one."
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This case highlights the divergence between law and reality. The case was quite properly dismissed, yet *everyone* knows that the law itself was a spite-filled riposte by Trump to blue states., specifically NY and NJ.
Why should the federal government subsidize the profligacy of NY and NJ? If NJ decides its state troopers should make $200k a year with a 100% pension starting after 20 years at age 43, why should that be the rest of the country's responsibility?
Your argument applies to *all* tax deductions taken by the better-off. Why should taxpayers subsidise billionaires and large corporations?
And does not actually address my point which was not that the law was passed on some idea of fairness but because of Trump's personal animus.
Depends on the deduction, now doesn't it?
I'm not sure it does. Under the current tax code, the wealthy (including Trump, whose self-interest one might have thought would have worked against ending this particular deduction) have enough loopholes, workarounds, and tax avoidance schemes, that I'll be surprised if this affected very many wealthy people at all. The people this really hurt was Democratic voters in blue states who are middle class or slightly above middle class.
The idea of "loopholes, workarounds, and tax avoidance schemes" is mostly storytelling.
All that stuff only keeps tax bills high instead of insanely high. And another word for "loophole" is "obeying the law" or "following the rules". Same for "tax avoidance schemes" — it simply means following the rules.
People who use that sort of language are almost never specific because they’re trying to tell a dramatic story to manipulate rather that a factual story to inform. The non-specific differentiation between "wealthy" and "above middle-class" is similar.
Vote for lower state and local tax if you want to pay less. New York and New Jersey aren’t exactly a paradise — are you really getting your money’s worth?
You do know that the high multi-M and B people pay almost no taxes, right?
Only if they have almost no taxable income.
What’s their income? Income taxes are paid on income, not on some fanciful high-net-worth club membership.
Of course you know that whatever they pay it’s generally always as a result of following the rules correctly.
Their income is 0...on paper.
How do you now know about this?
Of course you know that whatever they pay it’s generally always as a result of following the rules correctly.
How does this make you less wrong in your 12:10pm comment?
I've been doing tax returns since 1986. My degree is in Accounting, and part of that was a solid understanding of the Internal Revenue Code.
So point out to me how someone can have 0 income on paper, but really have some kind of income? Show a particular example of that.
"Their income is 0...on paper.
How do you now know about this?"
Is it non-zero on some other medium? What's your claim, Sarcastro?
Income is always "on paper". If it’s $0 "on paper" then it's $0.
Do you get paid in big sacks with dollar signs on them like Yosemite Sam?
"So point out to me how someone can have 0 income on paper, but really have some kind of income? Show a particular example of that."
Sure, have some unrealized capital gains say in the form of stock that has appreciated in value a lot. The tax code does not recognize this as "income" even though you have a lot more wealth than you used to.
Now in theory this is just a paper gain and you can't do anything with it, but in practice it's straightforward to use this stock as collateral for a (very) low-interest loan. So now you can have millions or billions in cash that relies on this capital gain that you're not being taxed on.
The IRS doesn't call this "income", but I think most normal people would think that if one year you had $0 in your bank and the next year you had $10 billion in that same account, and you can spend it the same way that normal people spend money that does count as income, that this is not a very interesting taxonomic distinction.
A loan against an asset isn’t income. And the interest rates on a loan like that aren’t much different than any other loan to someone who can easily pay it back. I applied for a loan like that last year. Didn’t end up borrowing the money because it wasn't a good deal for me.
How would you even pretend like such a loan is income?
The value of assets goes down just like it goes up. We've seen that in 2022. The government doesn’t return money to you when you lose money on investments. (You get to offset other gains if you have them. That can take many years.)
Sure, have some unrealized capital gains say in the form of stock that has appreciated in value a lot. The tax code does not recognize this as "income" even though you have a lot more wealth than you used to.
Wealth vs. Income. Two entirely different concepts. That said - it isn't income to you until you sell it, and the difference between what you paid and what you sold it for is income, but ONLY at the time you sell it.
Now in theory this is just a paper gain and you can't do anything with it, but in practice it's straightforward to use this stock as collateral for a (very) low-interest loan. So now you can have millions or billions in cash that relies on this capital gain that you're not being taxed on.
CAN have. But don't. And if you borrow on it, you're paying interest to someone else. So your argument is the opposite of what you see as income.
"A loan against an asset isn’t income."
Yes, we all agree that under the current tax regime capital gains are not treated as income, and that loans against assets that have capital gains also aren't income. This is a tautology, though. They're not income because that's the definition of income in our current tax system. There's mark-to-market contexts in which changes in value of an asset are already treated as income already in our system (e.g, security dealers) so that definition isn't some inviolate; it's just a feature of the current tax code.
For the record, I don't think the loan is income in the scenario I laid out. I think the use of the asset as collateral for the loan is a realization of the capital gain of the asset that makes it fair play to be taxed.
So no one would ever take out such a loan. Also margin accounts wouldn’t exist and 50-80% (or more) of financial transactions wouldn’t happen.
Home equity loans would go from very common to very rare — no way I’m going to pay all that tax on my home value increase just so I can borrow money. Hope those remodeling guys didn’t want employment.
@Ben_ - This tax loophole isn't of much value to people whos assets aren't large enough for the loans to sustain them through death. That's the other key element here--you take the loan and never pay it back while you live. It's worth noting that all of these people have private bankers.
Google "how billionaires avoid taxes" and you'll get a long list of hits from reputable sources that explain how this works and how common it is for people worth hundreds of millions or more.
So it’s only for a really tiny number of people. And it’s not really about the loans, it’s about the capital gains step up upon inheritance.
If you wanted to make the amount outstanding on the the loan subject to capital gains tax on death for the very tiny number of people this affects, then that solves the "problem". It’s a pretty technical change.
Not being so greedy for others’ money is also an option.
"So no one would ever take out such a loan."
Sure, what's the harm?
"Also margin accounts wouldn’t exist"
Sure they would, but also it's unclear if this is a significant harm even if it's true.
"50-80% (or more) of financial transactions wouldn’t happen."
LOL. Show your work, please. I'd be surprised if 10% of transactions depended on the tax-advantaged nature of this sort of leverage. And, once again, not clear the affected transactions are of net benefit.
"Home equity loans would go from very common to very rare"
Loans for primary residences get all sorts of special treatment in the tax code. No reason you couldn't do the same thing here.
Overall, the argument that you and I Callahan are making is "increases in wealth aren't income". But that's just an arbitrary definition of income that privileges return on capital over return to labor. It's not an argument for why the status quo is GOOD, it's just a restatement of what the status quo is.
OK, let's simplify the numbers, to explain how someone wealthy can pay nothing in taxes, despite making money, and use a loan to help them with living expenses. Compare 2 people, person A and person B.
Person A is paid entirely in wages. For the sake of argument, they make $100,000 a year, and pay 25% taxes a year for an annual tax bill of $25,000. After 10 years, they will have spent $250,000 in taxes.
Person B is wealthy. They have $40,000,000 in assets. For the sake of argument, this is split evenly between stock A, stock B, stock C, and Stock D. Person B gets a loan of $100,000 a year for their expenses, against their stock, to be paid back at the end of 10 years ($1,000,000, assume no interest for the sake of argument)
Over 10 years, 3 of the stocks increase in value by 5% a year (a 62% gain). Stock D decreases in value by 40%. Stocks A, B, and C now have a combined value of 48.9 million. Stock D has a value of 6 million. Total wealth = 54.9 Million, a modest 37% gain over 10 years.
Person B then proceeds to sell $800,000 worth of Stock D and $200,000 worth of stock A. Since Stock D is technically a capital loss, they use that to offset the realized gains in stock A. They haven't "Made" any money. They owe nothing in taxes, despite their wealth increasing by 37% over those 10 years.
"high multi-M and B people pay almost no taxes"
You need to show your work because that is highly doubtful.
This is the straight lie Leftists make by choosing to conflate income taxes and capital gains along with their lies about capital gains themselves.
Why should it matter whether your money was made through labor or capital?
Mainly the reason to tax gains lower is that someone doing labor gets paid for their labor. Someone investing money may lose it all or never get paid. So why bother investing if it’s taxed so high that it becomes not worth the risk?
And you want people to invest because (to pick an example) that’s how you get a farmer using a tractor instead of a hoe. He worked extra hard and saved up instead of spending on himself and now he can feed 10x or 100x as many people because he invested. Feeding 100x as many people with the same labor is good for many, many people.
Investments make the future better at the expense of the present. Return on investment has to be positive for it to be worthwhile. Tax it too high and it will stop. And then the future becomes a dark and hungry place.
Bullshit. I’m wealthy and in a red state, and this cap costs me several thousand dollars a year. I don’t dwell on it because the tax structure is what it is, but the cost is real.
Regardless of loopholes and whatever (which I wish someone tell me where they are) the math is simple. Your itemized deductions are less than they otherwise would have been by the amount that your SALT is over the cap. So your taxes are higher. Period.
Statistically, more blue state folks were taking advantage of this deduction, just due the the different tax structures in blue versus red states.
But yeah, individual experience will vary.
I feel your pain; taxes these past 2 years have been noticeably more painful for me.
I’m in Texas which is “low tax” because of our lack of income tax but our property taxes are breathtaking.
Try the People's Republic of NJ for high property taxes. 🙂
NJ taxpayers might want to ask why other states do better will lower taxes. And then vote a little more like the people in those other states.
So the original SALT deduction disparately impacted poor people?
And that’s what you think is fair?
You're not playing dumb. You appear to legit be very dumb.
Yeah. How dare you use Sarcastro's own words and ideas against him.
I believe you're performatively defending the dumbass misreading of my post.
I'm not so sure BCD is aware what he did.
The truth is, the local taxes cost you thousands of dollars a year, and this cap refrains from offsetting that.
But remember, the Democrats think people should pay their "fair share" unless it impacts them, then it's someone else's responsibility.
I live in NYC with a comfortable income from practicing as a biglaw partner, and my taxes went down under the Trump tax law. The SALT deduction was never doing me any real good, because my income and SALT deduction pushed me into AMT. Now I have the same income for regular tax that I have for AMT, but taxed at a lower rate, so my taxes went down.
The bigger issue here is that a single person gets $10K SALT cap and a married couple gets the exact same. (speaking of "marriage taxes...")
I'd have a lot easier time stomaching this if the cap behaved like other tax limits where it's generally one rate for single and double that rate for married.
"The people this really hurt was Democratic voters in blue states who are middle class or slightly above middle class."
Indeed!
Of course, that group was strongly anti-Trump. But recall the $10K was a compromise since the original proposal was to eliminate SALT.
Not really. Most "middle class or slightly above middle class" people weren't using it. (For the sake of argument, call it those making less than $100,000 a year. Remember median household income is $67,000).
The vast majority of the benefit went to those making $200,000 a year plus.
The people this really hurt was Democratic voters in blue states who are middle class or slightly above middle class.
Which was offset by changes in the standard deduction and tax brackets. How did your tax rate compare in 2017 vs. 2018? Mine went down despite being in MD and over the 10k SALT limit.
As an UMC NJ resident, my taxes went way up after the SALT cap was implemented.
The cap is good public policy, but screws me.
As a CA resident, my taxes jumped by a significant amount. That's largely due to the high cost of housing here. Otherwise, our lifestyle is fairly normal for a professional class, married couple. Even with claiming 0 dependents, we own multiple thousands extra per year. (and to be clear, aside from a below-median house in an expensive state, our disposable income is about the same for a similar household in any red state. )
"Your argument applies to *all* tax deductions taken by the better-off. Why should taxpayers subsidise billionaires and large corporations?"
Sure, and for every subsidy, there is a different answer. So, do you have a good reason that the feds should subsidize local taxes, other that Trump doesn't like it?
I'd benefit from restoring SALT deductibility as I live in Massachusetts and own a house. I think it is good it is capped. Living here is my choice. I'm getting services for my taxes (not worth it IMO, but I live here for other reasons). No reason the amount I pay for those services should be deductible, aka subsidized by other taxpayers. Mind you I'd be happier with a much simpler tax code with many fewer carve outs but that alas is how it is in the US.
I'm already seeing anecdotal evidence that the non-deductibility of SALT has made local officials less likely to increase property taxes.
I wonder how states attempts to game this are going. e.g. I encountered one of New York's efforts, the "Pass-through entity tax" (PTET) on a K-1. Hopefully will not be disallowed by the feds.
With all due respect, why should a business owner incorporated as a a partner or an LLC taxed as a partnership get advantages that a W-2 employee doesn't?
??? I'm not saying it *should work*, just wondering if it *will work*. The tax code is in general a smelly steaming pile. Exactly what is in the pile is often hard to discern.
"Not taking your money" is not "subsidizing you".
The State has no prior claim on someone's income, such that "not taking it" is a gift.
No, but the feds not taking money already paid to a state or local government is effectively subsidizing those states.
"Not taking your money" is not "subsidizing you"
If state taxes are deductible from federal taxes, then every dollar that the state collects costs taxpayers less than a dollar, which makes state taxes look artificially attractive.
They live to hand out deductions in exchange for their spouses mysteriously becoming investment geniuses-we-looked-into-it-nothing-wrong-found-we-assure-you.
Be cynical of "cleaning up deductions". You will say, "finally!" These kleptocrats think, "Cool! Now we can hand deductions out all over again!"
You're like 40 years out of date in what the rich pay politicians for.
Influence and access are still around, but it's all about subsidies now.
This denial of cert is a small victory in the battle against lawyer rent seeking and the feeding of big government quackery and tyranny.
iirc, eliminating the SALT deduction wasn't DJT's idea. I've been reading about the proposal for decades.
In Reason.
Maybe some animus on DJT's part. As if you never vote with any animus . . .
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I don't vote with animus. I'm never out to screw people legally because that never works out well for anyone. In my limited circles, I'm not aware of anyone that does that either. Maybe it's because local politics (the laws we generally get to vote directly for) have a more obvious and direct impact on every voter, myself included.
Whereas, DJT was very transparent about animus as one of his go-to approaches to live in general. Just look at the way he throws nearly everyone under the bus after they're no longer useful to him--family included.
State
And
Local
Taxes
A person can expense, up to a limit, the amount of SALT. That is nothing but means testing. But the SALT deduction does encourage States, and Locals to increase taxes without push back, because the pain is shoved off to the Federal govt. and taxpayers are not as likely to object to higher state and local taxes. The state and local govts should have to justify their raise in taxes to the voters.
SALT is just a discount on the total state and local taxes based on one's tax bracket. You still pay the large majority of the tax and politicians do have to justify them every election cycle. But as liberal voters tend to like more centralized government, higher taxes are an acceptable cost. Obviously, conservative voters don't agree and conservative majority states tend to be the net beneficiaries of the new SALT cap as they tend to draw more Federal subsidies and aid dollars than blue states.
Fund your own state. And no its not like all other deductions which apply to everyone equally no matter what state they live in.
"Fund your own state."
The better (Democratic, educated, accomplished, modern) states subsidize the inferior (Republican, rural, economically inadequate, poorly educated) states.
No, they don't. The state of New York has never sent money to the state of Mississippi.
This lie is really getting old.
It's unclear what the reality is, because federal funds just don't go to states based on 'states need'.
The presence of federally funded entities like military bases and national parks will distort these values. (And while some military bases may exist where they do because of a federal attempt to give money to a location, others exist because those locations are vital for national defense and you could not reasonably choose another location to fulfill the need).
Montana receives an out-sized amount of federal support, but it has large amounts of federal land (including 7 national parks) relative to the population living there. For comparison, New Jersey is 60% of Alaska's territory), including national parks and monuments. But it also is a key location for military installations that could not be located elsewhere. And with its relatively small population, those expenses dwarf any possible federal tax revenue.
All that federal land comes with costs that are born by the state that can't scale with population.
Fun fact: Alaska and California received about the same % of their state budget from the feds in 2014. (26.9% for AK, 26% for CA).
Wow, i lost a lot of text in the middle there, following 'New Jersey')
New jersey is less than 4% federal land, while Montana is over 28%
Alaska is ~60% federal land.
I probably lost some other things too (like Alaska being uniquely situated for certain defense needs).
To add to your excellent points, interstate highways and rail lines must connect the coasts for shipping to work. So a sparsely populated state in the center will receive more money per capita for the highways and rail lines.
Maryland appears to receive more as all NIH spending is allocated there. Same with the Pentagon being allocated to Virginia.
This is all aside from the fact that "states" don't subsidize "states." Individuals with high income subsidize individuals with low income. There may be more of the former in blue states, but that isn't really the point.
In addition to what you say, many of these calculations include funding for individuals, not just to states, which I think is misleading. If lots of people grow up in NY and pay lots of federal taxes, and then retire to FL and receive lots of money (FICA/Medicare/etc.), these calculations treat that as NY being a taxpayer and FL being a tax recipient, even though the money is going to/from individuals without regard to where they live.
Artie. It's propaganda. Be sophisticated enough not to make yourself look like a lying fool. Those big states are eating the lunch and living high off the toil of real Americans. The Trump election was a tiny interruption, and they took Trump down by shutting down their economies. These Democrat governors are traitors. They should still be arrested, tried for treason, and executed.
Speaking of being "sophisticated enough," those big states inlude Florida and Texas by population. That undermines your point.
TDS is strong with you. By singling out Trump, you imply no Democrat or other Republican has ever been motivated by political animus.
Here's News you can Use: Every single political decision is based on politics.
You appear to have mixed up both covert and overt, as well as *spite and politics*
helluva thing to mix up.
Trump explicitly governing as President of only those who voted for him is absolutely a new thing. You may feel like Dems had double standards, but that was always an arguable point, requiring feelings and suppositions and implications.
Trump's *appeal* is that he'd own the libs and make them cry.
re: "governing as President of only those who voted for him is absolutely a new thing"
Not hardly. In my lifetime alone, that description could be applied to both Harry Truman and Barrack "Elections have consequences" Obama just as well as to Trump. Go further back and there are lots and lots of examples. Being a narrow-minded bully is a bipartisan problem.
What did Truman and Obama do to target those who voted against them?
Obama talked a *lot* about governing the whole country, not just those who voted for him.
Sure he "talked" like that, he also talked a lot about being against gay marriage.
OK, you think talk is cheap. I think it matters, myself. A President saying he's only governing for those who voted for him is a big deal. And not good.
What did Truman and Obama do to target those who voted against them?
Obama had the IRS act against his opponents for one thing.
Also operation choke point.
Also focusing stimulus on his core voters instead of the people hurt worst by the recession:
https://www.aei.org/articles/no-country-for-burly-men/
That may be a bad policy, but it's 1) well in keeping with Dem's policy preferences, and 2) not actually targeting Republicans.
focusing stimulus on his core voters
What are you talking about?
If only there was a link there to answer that question.
Yeah, I thought 'no country for burly men' was something different.
But, LOL:
No matter that those burly men were the ones who had lost most of the jobs. The president-elect’s original plan was designed to stop the hemorrhaging in construction and manufacturing while investing in physical infrastructure that is indispensable for long-term economic growth. It was not a grab bag of gender-correct programs, nor was it a macho plan–the whole idea of economic stimulus is to use government spending to put idle factors of production back to work.
...So you think Biden is punishing men for not voting for him?
Whenever someone says "everyone knows" I interpret that to mean "I am about to say some BS that is false."
Yeah, that's fair on the bad sourcing.
But Trump campaigned against Democrat-run cities. He blamed 'blue states' for Covid cases being so high. In 2020 he just tweeted a bunch of blue states and said they were going to hell.
And then he passes a tax hike (not exactly on brand) with a disparate impact.
At some point, you gotta res ipsa this thing.
Has there ever been a tax that didn’t impact the people disparately?
I recommend you read the whole e-mail and get back to me.
Oh yeah, your argument is essentially “I read Bad Orange Man’s mind and concluded this was passed because he had bad thoughts, therefore it is wrong.”
Hard to argue against things that only exist in your mind.
You even need to read the last line.
The tax bill preceded COVID. And it was sold as overall a tax cut. You don't get to focus on just one provision to call it a hike.
See Joe_Dallas comments below. I take it he is an accountant.
"But Trump campaigned against Democrat-run cities."
Why shouldn't he have? Among many other criticisms one might make about rich Democrats, they were screwing the rest of us over with a tax break for rich Democrats. There's nothing wrong with having and animus against people who do that.
The mean Orange Man only made the Dems stop their bad behavior because he was mad at them for their bad behavior isn't much of an argument.
they were screwing the rest of us over with a tax break for rich Democrats.
That's not how this works. It's not a zero sum game. You know this.
Suddenly you're for tax hikes, because taxes are important? Don't be disingenuous.
There's nothing wrong with having and animus against people who do that.
What the fuck? I think this is a good policy, but People paying property taxes in cities did nothing wrong, you utter fucking partisan tool.
Your knee-jerk need to defend Trump really makes you seem like you want a fascist government that harasses anyone who didn't vote for them.
"That's not how this works. It's not a zero sum game. You know this.
Suddenly you're for tax hikes, because taxes are important? Don't be disingenuous."
Lol. That's exactly how it works. And I'm not for tax hikes, but I'm against taxpayers in low-tax states being forced to subsidies taxes in high-tax states.
And the rich democrats who were agitating for the cap definitely did something wrong.
It wasn’t a net tax increase by the Feds. They increased some and cut others. The US no longer has the highest business tax rate in the world because of that change.
Dems in blue states are always telling us how they’re will to pay more tax. If they were telling the truth when they said that, this wouldn’t even be a topic of discussion. What they mean is that they want to spend others' money on something even if costs them a tiny, tiny bit themselves. As soon as it becomes more like them actually paying for what they demand, then it’s not fair!
It's a subsidy only if it's a zero sum game. And you're smart enough to know it's not. In the heat of your argument, you're being pretty dumb.
It wasn’t a net tax increase by the Feds. They increased some and cut others
We're talking about SALT. Trying to change the scope like that is a telling retreat.
"It's a subsidy only if it's a zero sum game."
Say what?
"We're talking about SALT. Trying to change the scope like that is a telling retreat."
?? You accused me of supporting tax hikes, not of supporting the elimination of distortive subsidies in the context of a net tax decrease.
Jesus.
Group A puts various amounts of money into a pot. Group B puts various amounts of money into the pot, but less in a certain aspect.
A bunch of resources, including the pot, are distributed to groups A and B, but not equally.
Do you see how a subsidy is not how you describe this?
And that's ignoring the agency in the deduction you ascribe to those who live in cities, and how you *approve of hating them for this.* You realized that was psychotic, and so added an 'advocate for these policies' after. Which is switching mindless yawping for special pleading, because rich people advocating for tax breaks is the water we swim in. And THIS is the thing that makes you mad?
Bullshit. You know better.
Wow. I knew you were clueless, but not this clueless.
We presumably want higher earning taxpayers to pay more taxes to provide services to people who don't earn as much. That's one subsidy.
But it sounds like we agree that we don't want taxpayers in high-tax states paying net less in taxes than the state collects, at the expense of the low-tax state taxpayers. That's a subsidy that artificially makes taxes look more attractive, as I said above.
It has nothing to do with a zero-sum game.
We presumably want higher earning taxpayers to pay more taxes to provide services to people who don't earn as much. That's one subsidy.
Good lord. You're no longer arguing subsidy, but rather policy. I'm not arguing it was bad policy - I made that pretty clear.
You are going well beyond that to argue the deduction is *immoral policy*, and that retribution against those who take advantage of it is good. Which is *NUTS*
"Good lord. You're no longer arguing subsidy, but rather policy."
Lol. This is gibberish. Subsidies are policies, genius.
"You are going well beyond that to argue the deduction is *immoral policy*, and that retribution against those who take advantage of it is good."
Gaslighting again. I've argued that the SALT deduction is bad policy, that "animus" (your word) against those who advocated for the bad policy is fine, and retribution in the form of repealing the bad policy is fine.
Do you have any non-strawman criticism of my comments?
"Which is switching mindless yawping for special pleading, because rich people advocating for tax breaks is the water we swim in."
So is politicians rewarding their voters, but that really seems to have gotten your dander up.
Just because something is a spite-filled riposte doesn't make it either illegal or wrong.
I don't know if I think we should pull the trigger on full consequentialism as our morality.
Spite? I saw it as an exceptionally clever rejoinder to the lefties' increasingly boorish "tax cuts for the wealthy!" mantra. Actually take away a tax cut 95+% of which indisputably benefits the upper quintile, and watch Team Blue melt down.
exceptionally clever rejoinder
Do you really think that's better?
Tax policy is not arguing on the Internet. Acting like they're the same thing is bad Presidentin'
I have zero problem with the policy, I have lots of problem over the people defending policymaking to own the libs. Not policymaking to champion ideals libs don't agree with, but just fucking with them.
That's no way to run a country.
What about Democrats passing gun laws or mask mandates they know to be ineffective just to own conservatives?
But that’s different!
Yeah, it is, because you made up the 'they know to be ineffective' bit.
Is there a shred of evidence that requiring masks on planes, including thin cloth ones, and allowing people to take them off while eating and drinking, is it all effective?
Plenty of evidence - it's been provided here many times. Just none you will believe.
HA HA HA. Good joke.
No, you haven't provided any evidence that cloth masks are effective in any circumstances, much less on planes.
People have provided plenty of evidence to the contrary - from the NIH, Lancet, NEJM, and other credible sources, but you ignore all that as if it doesn't exist.
Good thing we're talking about something back in the good old days that was passed through normal legislation rather than by Presidential decree.
Where do you get that? Libs don't agree with making their states internalize the costs of their own unilateral spending decisions, and also (despite their inflammatory rhetoric) don't really agree with tax hikes for the indisputably well-off. So it brought moral clarity on two fronts, and actually got some revenue in the door to boot. Pretty efficient stuff.
This was a Trump push. Hiding behind 'passed by Congress' is ignorant and lame.
Where do I get that the Trump went against type and passed a tax cut, without really socializing it much, and said tax cut hurts blue states a lot more than red?
Also look at all the chortling in this thread at how it owned the libs.
moral clarity on two fronts
Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
“Hiding behind 'passed by Congress' is ignorant and lame.”
And yet, the act of passing legislation confers a real legitimacy that the mere exercise of the Executive Pen never could.
In any case, what exactly is your beef with properly passed legislation? In this case adjusting SALT (but not eliminating it, as there was legislative political compromise) provided instructional clarity for mere proles as to the dependence high-tax states and cities have on defraying costs via rebated Federal tax dollars. Those dollars were used to pay for the benefits that locals created for themselves and yet the costs were made non-local via SALT.
Don’t expect others to pay for your cities’ management costs.
"I have zero problem with the policy, I have lots of problem over the people defending policymaking to own the libs. Not policymaking to champion ideals libs don't agree with, but just fucking with them."
If you don't want republicans to pass good policies for the purpose of owning you, why don't you just pass the good policies yourselves?
Because wanting others to pay for goodies is one thing and paying for it yourself is another.
Hey Ben, read what I typed about this policy, and try again.
I can dislike on thing about a law and like another thing about it.
Substance and motivation are not inexorably linked.
"Tax policy is not arguing on the Internet."
I mean, basically it is. It's a lot of "no you! No you! No you!" All over the place and favoritism up the wazoo. It's an absolute mess and full of "screw them over" mentality.
That doesn't mean it's good, but it does mean it's par for the course.
No.
Policy is not an argument.
There are arguments about policy, but policy itself is not an argument.
The cap on the state and local tax is much ado about nothing.
The 2017 tax act capped SALT and $10k and at the same time substantially increased the exemption for the AMT and greatly increased the standard deduction. The overall result, even with loss of substantial SALT deduction, the majority of taxpayers paid less federal income tax, primarily due to no longer being hit with the AMT.
Prior to the 2017 approx 2/3 of my clients paid amt, since the 2017 act, less than 10% got hit with AMT. I have several clients that were paying in the range of $50-$150k in SALT. All paid less federal income after the 2017 act on the same income.
Right, calling this a tax hike is a misnomer. It was a reformulation of the burden, which in fact lessened it for many people, and increased it for some. Mainly the wealthy.
Thank you for providing some numbers to the fact that the AMT hit was substantially reduced to offset the SALT cap for many taxpayers.
Those in Blue states who are not arguing to get rid of the cap never add that they want to restore the AMT to its former, un-indexed glory.
Why don’t Democrats want to pay their fair share?
I think that attributes far more consciousness and intentionality to Trump than can possibly be justified by the facts. If you want to attribute it to animus against blue states by congressional Republicans, fine. But not to Trump.
On the plus side, screwing over high-income blue state residents was a great way to move the big city suburbs in places like New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California into the D column come election time. On the downside, now we're left with a Republican party that is obviously about nothing more than culture war and grievance politics since all of the pocketbook voters jumped ship.
Just get a few more Sotomayors, Beryl Howells, Ketanji Jacksons, and Reggie Waltons on the judiciary and they'll find a "theory" for the states' arguments.
Sotomayor did not dissent, so....
Only because she knew she was outnumbered. Either that, or she was too busy eating.
Nice one! So all you can eat specials is all we need?
I'm sure she would sacrifice the buffet for abortion and lgbtqxyz issues, but probably not others.
Dissents are precisely there to send a message when one is outnumbered.
Perhaps Sotomayor really thought there was no case?
(See here; she and Thomas agree almost half the time, and they're about as opposed as you're gonna get.)
Yes, but when you're outnumbered 8-1, it's a little more striking than when it's 6-3, for example.
"Sotomayor did not dissent"
No NOTED dissent. She might have wanted to take it, cert denials often don't have filed dissents. In fact they are kinda rare.
Plan B: Tax former residents, and retirees who move away income tax. Then extend that on as an inheritance tax for out of state 'residents'. Oh, and make it retroactive, because TRUMP!
Some states already do have an "exit tax" if you move out of state. I fail to see how its constitutional. I don't think its been litigated yet.
But apply an "entrance tax", to quote Jedediah from Citizen Kane, "Hoo, boy!"
In 1960s and 70s in Europe, they suffered from a "brain drain". Too much tax and government control, and people who actually could get things done, including doctors, were fleeing to the US. They tried similar things, up to and including simply banning leaving the country.
Such a proud moment for ostensible lovers of freedom.
"You are free...to live as we tell you. You are free...to live as we tell you." Sorry, was channeling Bill Hicks for a second...
Don't forget the going out of business taxes.
NJ has a nice 'Exit Tax'. They aggressively apply it.
This just proves that self interest know no party. The progressives want to tax the rich, this actually does it so why do they have a problem. It makes income tax more progressive.
See my response to nisliko above.
This was clearly the right decision, but it still sucks. Getting taxed on money that's paid in taxes to others stinks.
So stop voting for Democrats who make union pensions sacrosanct. Cut the huge pensions in half, tell the federal courts to go fuck off with their "contract clause" arguments, and tell retirees, sorry, better luck next time.
I agree in principle. I reject this "overlapping majesteria" of two levels of government, double-taxing the same money, or applying douboe jeopardy to crimes.
If only the frauds hadn't found a way to twist it to their own advantage either way.
No, it's good. There's no reason for the federal government to be incentivizing and subsidizing high state and local tax rates.
Logically, yeah there is, because at least as a matter of theory, if a state is providing more services (and taxing more to pay for them), then the federal government should have to provide less services. The problem is that while state government services are tied directly to and limited by revenues, federal government services are not.
That's ridiculous. The federal government doesn't provide school, library, police or fire services. It might provide questionably constitutional grants, but those grants are not doled out based on how much is "needed" after state and local funding of them.
"Logically, yeah there is, because at least as a matter of theory, if a state is providing more services (and taxing more to pay for them), then the federal government should have to provide less services"
I don't think that always follows; there is a wide range of possible municipal services. If the feds are going to subsidize the local budget via SALT deduction, a city can decide to change from private garbage service to a municipal service paid from taxes. Or build a pool or tennis courts or buy more snow plows or deliver free meals to shut ins or whatever.
Those may all be good things to do, or not, but they are optional - there isn't a 1 for 1 dollar tradeoff where either the feds or the city have to provide them; there is also the option of not doing them at all, in return for a lower tax bill. And ceteris paribus, the SALT reduction means that cities that choose lower taxes/lower services end up subsidizing cities that prefer a high tax/high service model.
I agree, this was a meritless challenge and should have never been filed.
Then again, some of the total c*** coming out of the 5th Cir. has made me reconsider what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit.
"This reform had a disproportionate impact on wealthier taxpayers and on taxpayers in Blue states because they tend to have higher property taxes and income taxes."
Or to put it another way, the deduction itself had a disproportionate impact on less wealthy taxpayers, and taxpayers in 'red' states.
I didn't even know there was a lawsuit.
The policy may not be bad - what is being incentivized by the deduction, other than living in states with higher government spending? I don't see why that needs to be incentivized.
But SRG is also right that Trump is not a policy guy, and this was not a policy decision, but retribution against a part of the country he didn't like as President.
Which is probably legal under current law on animus, but a *monumentally* fucked up way for a President to be.
TCJA was passed by the House and Senate prior to Trump signing it. The law was not imposed by Trump by some presidential fiat. As to "animus", well, probably as he tends to be petty. But acting in a way that helps your party is pretty run of the mill, and clearly to the Republicans in congress getting rid of the SALT deduction as way to pay for a tax bill seemed quite reasonable. And it seems reasonable to me though it was not in my financial interest.
Like much major legislation these days tax bill was written in conjunction with the White House, to the point everyone agreed this was Trump's bill.
His party agreeing with his spiteful actions is an indictment of his party, not an exoneration of Trump.
This is not helping your party. Tax hikes are not something the GOP thinks is good policy. But they made an exception to hurt those who didn't vote for them. That's not run of the mill.
As my post said, the policy is fine. But the motives are absolutely fucked.
Once you open the door to targeting your policies to make life more difficult for anyone who doesn't vote for you...where does that end?
With civil war. Which civil war is long overdue.
"As my post said, the policy is fine. But the motives are absolutely fucked."
What were the pure of heart motives behind having people in low tax areas subsidize people in high tax areas?
Who knows?
Unlike Trump, we can only speculate about their motives.
I'd be careful with the 'Trump was a uniquely amoral president' bit. I'd buy 'Trump has the poorest impulse control of any president', but most amoral has some stiff competition. Nixon and LBJ come to mind.
I'm not superlative about Trump as our worst President. I know the fallacies of presentism.
Trump was a uniquely *open in his abuse of power* President.
Also, I saw you replied to tkamenick's rationale above. Maybe not right, but enough to allow not everyone advocating for the policy was looking to screw red states.
Blue states should have thanked Trump for the opportunity to pay more, like they always say they want to.
" Now that this lawsuit is over, taxpayers in the plaintiff states no longer have to worry about the squandering of their tax dollars on this utterly meritless litigation, "
The advanced, successful, educated states also can continue to subsidize the inferior, gape-jawed, half-educated, superstitious, can't-keep-up backwater states.
Until the reckoning (arranged by elected officials as the liberal-libertarian mainstream continues to win the culture war) addresses that point, and the inferior states have some overdue accountability imposed on them.
Carry on, clingers . . . we'll let you know how far and how long.
(You get whine and whimper about it as much as you like, so long as you continue to comply.)
"The advanced, successful, educated states also can continue to subsidize the inferior, gape-jawed, half-educated, superstitious, can't-keep-up backwater states."
Turn your other cheek and endure further insult, Rev. We just don't appreciate all you've done for us.
If everyone has Rev muted, and he posts a comment, has a tree fallen in the forest?
Why feed the troll? LIke all trolls, he presumably thrives on getting responses to his repetitive boring schtick, why reward him?
Same reason I enjoy putting a pin in a balloon.
The Rev has been honing his schtick for years. Years with one or two jokes over and over and over. You’d think he would’ve perfected them by now, but sadly no.
Ah, yes, the Brown Shirt comments.
Are these some of our "betters":
https://nypost.com/2022/04/11/student-feared-for-life-after-being-chased-by-mob-targeting-allen-west/
These 'conservatives feared the liberals would beat them but they never did' stories are an odd flex.
https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/university-of-buffalo-student-disgusted-by-schools-response-to-protest-america-is-not-racist-why-american-values-are-exceptional-lt-col-allen-west
Yes, chasing someone into the bathroom and screaming to get her is just what democracy is about.
Are you becoming a fascist apologist?
I have become skeptical of these increasingly common individual stories of fear and escape by conservative students.
This tale did not make me less skeptical.
Of course not, because your job isn’t to be sincere it’s to gaslight.
That’s it. Just gaslight.
Being placed in existential danger by speakers on campus is much more a thing of the left I know. But I have no reason to question this woman's story myself.
"fear and escape by conservative students."
and female US senators from Arizona
That was not a fear situation. But you knew that.
I guess the cops who had to escort West out were just on a lark, or maybe looking for some free donuts.
Weird, you changed the principle of the story there.
No I didn't. Read the story. The students protested and got so raucous and threatening that the speaker (West) had to be escorted out and the organizer, herself a student, was chased into the bathroom.
But keep denying reality. There is a strain of fascist behavior running through college students today. It's a minority, but a vocal and aggressive minority can cow the rest.
Especially because the authorities are mostly on the side of the aggressors and are desperately aching to punish anyone who mounts any sort of defense.
Your quote is not about the speaker. But then, you asked about what happened to the speaker.
Which is a separate subject.
We can talk about West, but you didn't emphasize the story about the heckler's veto of the well-heeled guy with the paid security. Wonder why?
You are really desparate. What I am complaining about is the willingness to use threats and intimidation to shut down speech one dislikes or disagrees with. That is what happened here, and was directed at both the speaker (West) and the student who organized the event. They did not chase that student into the bathroom because they wanted to rape her or steal her purse, they wanted to intimidate her and others like her from organizing similar events.
And what difference does it make that he is a "well-heeled guy with the paid security" (which is not even evident from the article, but let's assume that's true.) How does that excuse their behavior -- which achieved its purpose, even if West was not physically hurt?
Bottom line: answer to my question is yes. You are an apologist for fascist behavior by students.
Right - and my issue was clearly that I doubted the veracity of the girl's story.
So switching to West to try and come after my objection is not relevant.
Your side wants the advanced, successful, educated taxpayers to continue to subsidize the inferior, gape-jawed, half-educated, superstitious, can't-keep-up taxpayers, remember Arthur?
You'd think Arthur could at least bother to know what side he's on.
Wonder why no national press headlines this morning on how these blue states wasted taxpayer money and judicial economy. We all know after they tracked court action for four years under Trump they are well tuned into the happenings with that branch and promoting transparency. Right.....
I'm amused by the commenters who seem to believe that Trump was intimately involved in crafting tax legislation. I'm sure he called up Kevin McCarthy and said, "Don't forget to include a reduction in the SALT deduction." One wonders why he did not ask for it to be eliminated entirely, being so full of "spite" and all.
But kudos to these blue states for going to the mat to fight for the poor millionaires and billionaires who had to pay a little more in taxes because of this legislation.
The scenario I figure is one of the partisan assholes in his inner circle brought this to him and said 'this'd own the blue states' and he said go do it.
So the genesis wasn’t his idea to own the libs?
So, you're assuming that Trump, whose prior career was building, was ignorant of real estate taxation rules?
Many states have passed or are considering a SALT cap "workaround" for pass-through entities, and the IRS has apparently blessed it.
I haven't read the IRS guidance yet but I've been thinking it seems odd to me. The state basically declares that pass-through entities are no longer pass-through in the sense that the SALT taxes are paid at the entity level and therefore are a deductible business expense, as with C corporations. But I don't understand how state law is relevant in any way to the tax treatment of pass-through entities at the federal level. Is this just a case of the IRS saying, yeah that seems like a good policy outcome so we'll go with it?
There isn’t a single federal institution that isn’t aligned and actively working with Democrat objectives.
Except the Supreme court, and that really has the Democrats pissed off, they're supposed to control everything.
Pretty much: The current administration isn't sympathetic to the law, but they don't have the votes to repeal it. So they'll just permit states to violate it.
The IRS guidance actually came under the Trump administration on Nov 9 2020, Notice 2020-75. Not that this makes any difference in my mind as to politics, since the DC bureaucracy is 99% liberal regardless of who is President. But again I haven't read it yet as necessary to understand to the issue, just seems peculiar.
Seems telling that it only came after Trump was a lame duck and they know the incoming president wouldn't overturn it with an EO
Pretty much. Even while he was President, the bureaucracy were only doing Trump's will to the extent they could be forced to. We're at a point where the Democrats control most of the government even when they're nominally out of power, because their hold on the bureaucracy is so complete.
I don't see a way out of this without extensive reform of civil service protections, so that they need to actually fear being fired if they're insubordinate.
Having a hold on the bureaucracy wouldn't be enough if they didn't also have a hold on the media to selectively report in their favor and the academy to have "expert" professors to interview.
Trump’s tenure showed us that the real power in this country isn’t held by the White House but by the unaccountable, unelected, and unfireable Administrative State.
They do whatever want, it just so happens these agencies are filled with Democrats so as soon as we had a President who wasn’t a Democrat we saw their real power.
As much as I don't like it, my instinct is that it's within the law. The law currently allows partnerships to deduct all taxes paid to states and local governments prior to a partner's K-1 income being calculated. In many ways, this makes sense, as a partnership that owns a commercial building should get to deduct those property taxes as a business expense.
Here, some states have given partnerships the choice to pay taxes that would otherwise be "passed-through" to the individuals. While I agree it makes a mockery of the term "pass-through," I can't find any legal requirement that the states define pass-through the same way the IRS does.
Good clean up item for the GOP president and congress in 2025.
You may be right, but -- "I can't find any legal requirement that the states define pass-through the same way the IRS does." The states can do whatever they want with respect to state taxes. The issue in my mind is, I can't find any legal requirement that the IRS define pass-through in the same way a state does.
But the IRS is not defining pass throughs differently. What's happening here is that New York is saying "In a partnership, each partner owes state income taxes on the amount that is allocable to such partner. The full net profit can either be passed through to the partner, or the partnership can pay the applicable amount of state income taxes on the partner's behalf prior to the profit being passed through."
The state is changing the way it assesses taxes, to the benefit of the individual partners in the partnership. A cynical attempt at evading Congress' intent, sure, but I am not seeing how it's illegal.
As Bob from Ohio noted, it was a drafting oversight that a future Congress would have to fix. Congress got the law it drafted, not the law it intended to draft.
Right. But whether the state taxes are passed through in the eyes of the state, or paid at the entity level, seems like it would be irrelevant to whether it is passed through as a matter of federal taxation. States could end all pass-through taxation and treat everything as a C corporation, but that doesn't determine federal tax law.
I imagine it's an issue where the IRS has enough leeway to decide what they did, but I'm skeptical that they had to do so.
The difference is, and I am not an expert on this, so take it for what it's worth, is that the "partnership" taxation option New York allows is not based on what the individual partners would owe under the old system, but is a new formula for calculating tax on the partnership's total income. So it's not merely an attempt to dress up an individual tax as a partnership one, but a true tax on the partnership's income. Depending on each individual partner's income and tax situation, an individual partner may be better or worse off if the partnership chooses to take the election.
To their credit, it was a clever way of using the law in their favor.
Bottom line, property taxes are a valid business expense. Makes sense. If the totality of the tax is due to the business, it's an expense. Same with any cost for running a business. If it's for personal use, then it isn't a business expense. Same as anything else.
The SALT deduction and its limitation includes not just property taxes, but state income taxes, sales/use, etc.
You could just as easily say that federal income taxes are a business expense and should be deducted from income for state tax purposes, as you could say that state taxes are a business expense and should be deducted from income for federal tax purposes. Yet only one can be policy.
While I'm all for lower tax burdens, deducting SALT from income for federal tax purposes does subsidize and incentivize higher SALT.
I agree with everything you say.
taxpayers in the plaintiff states no longer have to worry about the squandering of their tax dollars on this utterly meritless litigation
Everyone involved is a state employee on a flat salary. They would get paid the same whether they worked on this case or on others. The cost of paper and printing is inconsequential. The opportunity cost of having these people working on this case rather than others is a real, if unmeasurable, thing, but it doesn't change anyone's tax bill.