New Tax Policy

[redwood66]

Hi Molly. As far as the federal grants and loans these programs already exist and could be expanded if deemed necessary as in the case of infrastructure. But the programs must be scrutinized to ensure the funds are spent wisely. I have stated before that I have reviewed grant requests on behalf of the state in concert with submission to the federal government. Some of these grants are requests for decorative city entry signage, public works of art for display in a city, and other non essential, non-transportation related items that should the cost should be borne by the local citizenry rather than US taxpayers.

With regard to your list many of those deductions will be unnecessary for lower income people if the standard deduction is increased as noted it may be. Ones that may create an issue for some are those people with exorbitant healthcare expenses beyond the basic premiums. Those expenses beyond the premium costs could be deducted on lower income individuals.

If the end game is to increase revenue while helping the lower income individuals then I do not see how this could be a bad plan. My concern is will the tax cuts for corporations actually aide the economy. The opinions are all over the map on this and I can only hope that whatever passes helps.



Edit - Sorry for assuming that one would know that this portion of the excerpt I posted is what I agree with.

Critics of the deduction argue that state and local taxes simply reflect payments for services provided by those jurisdictions and, as such, should be treated no differently than other forms of spending. They also point to the uneven distribution of benefits across income groups and states.

 

[t-c]

I never suggested that high tax states do not pay their fair share and do not accuse me of being evasive. This thread is about the proposed tax cuts not about distribution of federal funds. My opinion is also that the SALT deduction is removed for all states so that can hardly be deemed selective. The distribution of federal funds is a completely different topic and is very complicated when you take into consideration the widely varied income levels, widely uneven existence of federally funded facilities such as military bases and colleges throughout the states plus state and local tax structure that exists in a particular state. As a rule I am against all unnecessary federal subsidies including agriculture and energy.

The article I posted was quite clear conveying what I believe regarding the SALT deduction.

"But the whole donor donee thing is much more complicated than that" is hardly being definitive. All I'm asking is your position on "California and other high-tax states residents should continue subsidizing, and in fact increase those subsidies to the other states, but at the same time these same residents should live with cuts in services because the federal government should not be subsidizing their state taxes. So what governs which subsidies you are for and against?" You must have some opinion on this.

Surely you can see that the SALT deduction (and its removal) is only applicable to states with state taxes and will disproportionately affect those states with high SALT. So, yeah, it's selective.

 

[redwood66]

If you are asking for me to agree with you that all fed funds in from each state match all fed distribution then sure I'll bite. At the same time redistribute the federal facilities that exist in those states and bolster those local economies to lower income and population states. Especially states like California.

If states with high SALT are unhappy with those taxes then change the way your state handles taxes, or reduce the multitude of programs. I moved from that high tax state because of it. Many of the programs are wonderful ideas and benefit people but you must be able to afford to pay for them. This one conservative ideal causes consternation in liberals.