SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ManyMoose who wrote (391429)11/5/2010 2:48:49 PM
From: Joe NYC1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794015
 
That would severely hurt me, and I'm against it. I live in the red half of my state, in a red neck county.

I don't want to punish high tax states. That would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.


I live in NY City, so it would hurt me too. But eliminating deductibility of state, local and real estate taxes would create a powerful incentive for these high tax states to reconsider their policies.

As is, low tax states are indirectly subsidising the high tax states. Suppose a high tax states delivers $100 worth of some goodies and increases taxes by $100. This $100 cost, once deducted from federal taxes reduces taxes by some $30, so the high tax resident receives $100 for the cost of $70. The $30 loss of revenue has to be recouped eventually, and it is recouped mainly by the low tax states. So you may have a resident of Alaska with no local garbage pick-up paying for garbage pick-up in New York City...

The problem for the country is that these high tax states not only send a lot of Dems to Congress, with their high tax/spend policies, they subsidize unions, and the unions in turn fund Dems across in the entire country.

If the tax deductibility went away, the residents of high tax states may eventually revolt. It has sort of happened in New Jersey. Loss of tax deductibility might cause this revolt to spread to all the other blue patches on the map...