Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Joe NYC who wrote (391456)	11/5/2010 4:28:43 PM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 794015

As is, low tax states are indirectly subsidising the high tax states. I see your point, but I'd have to know that the federal government would adjust the tax rate downward to compensate for the loss of deductibility. I have no reason to believe that they would. My state (Washington) had two ballot measures that were essentially attempts to pull the wool over the voters' eyes, but they did not fall for it. One tried to implement an income tax, but only for those making over $250,000. The voters correctly surmised that it would be only a matter of time before that floor crept downward. The other tried to raise the debt ceiling without admitting that they had raised it. Their strategy was to remove federal dollars from the equation. Voters saw through that too. I don't know why voters who are smart enough to see those two assaults on their money would elect the statewide candidates that they do. It's incomprehensible.