If nothing else, it's an attempt to buy re-election for Democrats in districts like mine:
NJ-11 was a long-time Republican district which flipped blue in 2018, thanks in large part to a very well organize local movement (NJ 11 For Change). I wouldn't call this a safely blue district, and expect the SALT issue will be very helpful to Rep. Sherrill in holding her seat.
I don't disagree with your policy point, but think it's worth noting the politics around this too. If you did want to attempt a defense of this on policy, one could argue that with more progressive states like NJ picking up the slack for services that should be, or once were, provided by the federal government, it's fairer for the tax revenue to go to the state rather than being taxed a second time for services not rendered. I'm not sure whether I myself fully buy into that argument -- I'm closer to your POV here -- but it's not a totally meritless point IMO.
Interesting. Seems like the argument was mainly to NOT limit the SALT deduction. But there was rarely an argument to limit the MAX amount. At least none that I recall.
Bernie Sanders was against a full repeal of the Salt cap, but was willing to compromise on raising that limit. That cap is the main reason why my checks from the IRS turned into checks to the IRS, so I’m happy to see any relief at all on that cap.
The $80,000 is a number that easily can be negotiated down, giving everyone a "win" on all sides.
PVW said:
If nothing else, it's an attempt to buy re-election for Democrats in districts like mine:
NJ-11 was a long-time Republican district which flipped blue in 2018, thanks in large part to a very well organize local movement (NJ 11 For Change). I wouldn't call this a safely blue district, and expect the SALT issue will be very helpful to Rep. Sherrill in holding her seat.
I don't disagree with your policy point, but think it's worth noting the politics around this too. If you did want to attempt a defense of this on policy, one could argue that with more progressive states like NJ picking up the slack for services that should be, or once were, provided by the federal government, it's fairer for the tax revenue to go to the state rather than being taxed a second time for services not rendered. I'm not sure whether I myself fully buy into that argument -- I'm closer to your POV here -- but it's not a totally meritless point IMO.
thanks for the link - if they are concerned about middle income taxpayers-$25k max salt would handle it. any thing over that gets you into AMT unless your income is significant. Probably over $600k
Math Tutoring with Certified Teacher
Jun 12, 2024 at 4:41pm
Jun 12, 2024 at 10:40am
Jun 11, 2024 at 4:33pm
Nanny/Family Assistant Available
Jun 11, 2024 at 4:15pm
Brazilian cleaning 973 776 2481
Jun 9, 2024 at 11:47am
CF584 FT Nanny for Infant (Sept Start)
Jun 12, 2024 at 8:11pm
WF753 FT Nanny for Infant (Aug Start)
Jun 12, 2024 at 7:57pm
SF704 FT Nanny for Infant (July Start)
Jun 11, 2024 at 1:23pm
(HIRING NOW) Celebrity Elderly/ Nanny Employment Agency UP to $5000 Weekly Cash
Jun 10, 2024 at 4:29pm
SHF532 FT Nanny/Household Manager for 2 (ASAP Start)
Jun 9, 2024 at 9:20pm
in this proposed bill there is a major tax cut for the wealthy in the form of increasing the SALT deduction from $10k to $80k. this $70k increase in deduction would save taxpayers in the 39.6 ( new tax bracket -I think) over $25k. this is a straight giveaway to the wealthy ( and most members of congress/house). they are trying to show this bill as paying for itself and they just give more money away-crazy!. I sent a message to Sen Booker to express my disagreement and suggested the increase be limited to $15k or $20k max which might help some middle class folks. over a week ago-no reply ( maybe I expect too much)
oots