71–73 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not following your latter point: isn't the flat rate for the higher standard deduction progressive?
Not really. It’s subsidizing sparsely populated states that either don’t need to or don’t care to provide the state/local services that populated places need.
"...The $10,000 cap was imposed as a way to offset some of the cost of other individual and business tax cuts. The Treasury Department and the I.R.S. are worried that the workarounds could further balloon the cost of the tax cuts, which are projected to add more than $1 trillion to the national debt over a decade." Describing this as likely to 'further balloon' the cost of tax cuts seems inaccurate and misleading - t…
No, from the perspective of the federal budget (c.f. Treasury and IRS, the entities "worried" here) it will absolutely decrease revenue and "further balloon the cost of the tax cuts". It's true that the loss would be to the states' tax revenue and not the taxpayers, but I don't see why that merits the kind of spin you're trying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure I follow. The wealthier have higher incomes and higher property taxes due to buying more expensive homes. The $10,000 cap hits them even harder.
If you live in New York, New Jersey, California, etc, a large percentage/majority of homeowners are impacted by the $10k cap. But you need to clear $24k in deductions (as a married couple) to even take that deduction. The average homeowner loses, as they can’t cross the threshold, and every marginal state/local tax dollar costs 15-25% more than it did before.
I don't think the "average homeowner" would complain that they can't take as big of a homeowners deduction when the net result is they are exempting a larger portion of their income regardless.