Why high tax-state Republicans should support the elimination of the state and local tax deduction

The president's tax plan was released this week, to the usual weeping and gnashing of teeth by Democrats.

Socialist Bernie Sanders called it "morally repugnant."

Senator Bob Casey (D) tweeted, "Cutting taxes for the super-rich won't create jobs or grow incomes for middle class families."  

Nancy Pelosi (D) tweeted, "The GOP Tax Plan isn't tax reform. It's a ploy to give the rich massive tax cuts - & make families foot the bill."

Dianne Feinstein tweeted, "The Republican Tax Plan is nothing but a tax cut for the rich! It's another backroom GOP proposal, with no input from Democrats or the public, that will leave working Americans worse off in order to benefit the rich. A real nonstarter."

Feinstein also stated, "I don't believe California should suffer in order for President Trump to give tax cuts to the rich[.]"

"California's suffering" is in reference to the elimination of the state and local tax deduction, or SALT, currently allowed on federal tax filings.  This is a provision that allows one to deduct his state and local tax payments on his federal filing.

This provision admittedly is a hard sell for California and other high tax-state Republicans (New York, New Jersey, etc.), as it would cost residents of these states more in federal taxes.

While it is common to view these matters from a self-interested perspective, why should a high tax-state Republican support paying more money to the federal government?

Our state has high taxes in part because this provision has for so long existed.  We don't complain (as much) when taxes are raised, as we figure we can write off this payment against our federal filings.  How much more downward pressure on new taxes can Republican residents apply in their Democrat-majority legislatures, if and when this deduction is eliminated as part of the tax reform package?  In California, I can attest, there is seemingly nothing that has kept our Democrat super-majority from demanding, as Billy Idol so eloquently stated, more, more, more.

If you are a limited-government conservative, understand that this deduction is a subsidy, paid to you, as the federal government plunders other state residents to pay the shortfall.  Government has nothing that it doesn't conscript from another person.

On the whole, the president's tax reform plan is a net positive, as it seeks to help the middle class, spur economic activity, and produce much anticipated good-paying jobs.  While this provision may appear to sting California residents, it will most assuredly shine a light on the tax-and-spend liberals in Sacramento.  The sting is not the elimination of the deduction, but the high tax rate you pay for the privilege of writing it off on your federal filing.

The president's tax plan was released this week, to the usual weeping and gnashing of teeth by Democrats.

Socialist Bernie Sanders called it "morally repugnant."

Senator Bob Casey (D) tweeted, "Cutting taxes for the super-rich won't create jobs or grow incomes for middle class families."  

Nancy Pelosi (D) tweeted, "The GOP Tax Plan isn't tax reform. It's a ploy to give the rich massive tax cuts - & make families foot the bill."

Dianne Feinstein tweeted, "The Republican Tax Plan is nothing but a tax cut for the rich! It's another backroom GOP proposal, with no input from Democrats or the public, that will leave working Americans worse off in order to benefit the rich. A real nonstarter."

Feinstein also stated, "I don't believe California should suffer in order for President Trump to give tax cuts to the rich[.]"

"California's suffering" is in reference to the elimination of the state and local tax deduction, or SALT, currently allowed on federal tax filings.  This is a provision that allows one to deduct his state and local tax payments on his federal filing.

This provision admittedly is a hard sell for California and other high tax-state Republicans (New York, New Jersey, etc.), as it would cost residents of these states more in federal taxes.

While it is common to view these matters from a self-interested perspective, why should a high tax-state Republican support paying more money to the federal government?

Our state has high taxes in part because this provision has for so long existed.  We don't complain (as much) when taxes are raised, as we figure we can write off this payment against our federal filings.  How much more downward pressure on new taxes can Republican residents apply in their Democrat-majority legislatures, if and when this deduction is eliminated as part of the tax reform package?  In California, I can attest, there is seemingly nothing that has kept our Democrat super-majority from demanding, as Billy Idol so eloquently stated, more, more, more.

If you are a limited-government conservative, understand that this deduction is a subsidy, paid to you, as the federal government plunders other state residents to pay the shortfall.  Government has nothing that it doesn't conscript from another person.

On the whole, the president's tax reform plan is a net positive, as it seeks to help the middle class, spur economic activity, and produce much anticipated good-paying jobs.  While this provision may appear to sting California residents, it will most assuredly shine a light on the tax-and-spend liberals in Sacramento.  The sting is not the elimination of the deduction, but the high tax rate you pay for the privilege of writing it off on your federal filing.

RECENT VIDEOS