Democratic Lawmakers Threaten Spending Bill Over SALT Cap Repeal

Image by Steve Buissinne from Pixabay

Tax that man behind the tree. As Congress works to pass a $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package a group of “moderate” Democrats are threatening to block the spending bill unless the State and Local Tax (SALT) caps are repealed. Prior to Donald Trump’s 2017 tax law, state and local taxes were fully deductible on federal income tax returns (for itemized filers). The 2017 tax law, passed at the urging of Donald Trump, limited the SALT deduction to $10,000. This cap has long rankled Democrats elected to office in high-tax, high-spending locales such as the New York metropolitan area and San Francisco. Closer to home the cap also impacts people living in Virginia’s high-cost, high-tax areas like Northern Virginia.

Tax breaks for the rich. Many Democrats from high-tax jurisdictions have opposed the SALT caps since they were first conceived. Cherry picking data and distorting the facts has been used in an effort to claim that the SALT caps create serious harm for the middle class. Back in 2017 Speaker Nancy Pelosi tweeted, “This is striking: 50% of households that claim State & Local Tax deduction make under $100K – & now @SpeakerRyan wants to throw it away.” That statement earned Pelosi two Pinocchios from The Washington Post. The benefits of lifting the SALT cap would accrue 30% to the top 1% of household income earners, 49% to the top 5% and 80% to the top 20%.

Taking a new tact. The latest attempt to repeal the SALT cap is aimed more at social programs than the hallucination that the caps hurt the middle class. One advocate for a full repeal of the SALT cap is Rep. Thomas Suozzi who represents the northern shore of Long Island and sections of Queens.

“We need to have this state and local tax deduction. We built a whole system around it,” New York’s Suozzi, a main proponent of the cap repeal, said Tuesday. “People are leaving our states. And when they leave, it leaves behind a hole in our revenues.”

From that fairly honest point Suozzi veers into distortion.

“We’re in a competition with states that do not insure their children, do not pay their teachers, do not have mass transit and think that climate change is a hoax, and as a result, their costs are cheaper.”

It would be interesting to ask Rep. Suozzi for a list of the states that don’t pay their teachers. Or, for ideas as to where Wyoming would put mass transit.

The fact that the voters in New York elect tax-and-spend politicians like Suozzi hardly justifies the good people of Arkansas subsidizing the New Yorkers’ choices.

Back in the Old Dominion. The SALT cap should remain on the books. Mismanaged, high cost, high-tax areas like Northern Virginia don’t happen by accident. County Boards of Supervisors are into developers’ pockets for donations, etc. In return, bad zoning decisions pad the developers’ pockets while holding down the supply of affordable housing which keeps home prices and real estate taxes high. The unslakable thirst for NoVa money to be spent elsewhere in the state has our state legislature forever on the prowl for ways to raise taxes (and tolls) in NoVa but nowhere else. Meanwhile, the overpaid and under-loved residents of NoVa seem determined to elect politicians whom they know will raise state and local taxes.

Why should the rest of the country subsidize the incompetence of the electorate and political class in places like San Francisco, Boston, New York, New Jersey and Northern Virginia?

— by Don Rippert

 


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

46 responses to “Democratic Lawmakers Threaten Spending Bill Over SALT Cap Repeal”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar

    Do you have a view on what the tax rate for capital gains and qualified dividends ought to be? Same as other income?

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      Probably not. Somewhere between today’s rate and 37%. If you want people to save ypu have to give them an incentive to do so.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        cap it like SALT?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          It is capped. The first 37,500 is taxed at 0%, then 15% and at like $200k it’s 20%.

          The idea is investing builds the economy and Uncle Sugar wants that.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Investing is not saving. SALT benefits high earners more than low. LTCG&QD benefits low earners more than high, except how many $50K/yr earners have $300K in taxable accounts?

        The wonderful thing about LTCG&QD is the assumption that your deductions are earned income so once you reach Sched D or the worksheet, the entire amount of gains and dividends remains intact while all deductions come from the earned.

        1. Doesn’t LTCG&QD have something to do with “gender identity”?

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Oh dear God, did I… wait no. That’s right. Geez, close though.

        2. DJRippert Avatar

          Larry didn’t ask about SALT, he asked about capital gains. And I believe that investing is very much a form of saving. You can open a low cost investment account for very little or no money. Anybody “saving” by using a savings account needs to be provided remedial financial training.

          RobinHood has its issues but getting a small percentage of your earnings into the market probably through a broad index) is a good way to save.

          To become a millionaire over 30 years (assuming an 8% annual compounded return) requires saving / investing $156 per week.

          Living with one’s means and consistently investing (saving) is what we should be teaching young people in terms of financial literacy.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            The topic was taxes, SALT in the article LTCG&QD in Larry’s question. I felt obligated. My objection to SALT cap and rate is taxing a tax. I have no objection to low rates on gains even to the wealthy since investing is the cornerstone of the economy. But, those of means avoid even those.

            My personal favorite is the foreign tax credit. Woohoo! Talk about fun forms! The 1116 is fun, fun, fun. I cannot imagine how many people just stop at the $300 cap because they find the form for increased allowance and carryover too daunting! Moreover, are the number of idiots with foreign investments in their tax deferred accounts. No. No. No. if you want to invest in foreign securities do it in your taxable accounts!

            Jesus Saves! Moses Invests! There is a difference and it’s “risk”. Well, before Nixon, anyway.

          2. DJRippert Avatar

            Prohibiting the taxing of a tax subsidizes excessive state and local taxing and spending.

            Federal, state and local should be managed as separate entities to the extent possible.

            People willing to accept a lower level of services from their state and local governments should not be forced to subsidize those who want an attempt (almost never realized) of gold plated state and local services.

            Finally, the Democratic con job of adjusting electrical rates to pay for a state mandated wealth transfer ought to be seen as a tax because that is what it is. Should the excess charged to some ratepayers in order to subsidize other rate payers also be a legitimate deduction in an uncapped SALT regime?

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            re: ” Prohibiting the taxing of a tax subsidizes excessive state and local taxing and spending.”

            does that work the opposite way also?

            re:l subsidizing – do you mean like Medicare and national defense , etc?

            don’t we have elections for this?

          4. DJRippert Avatar

            We do have elections and we elected a president who led the effort to cap the SALT deduction. Good for him. I can’t vote in New York City elections (even though I had to pay New York taxes every day I traveled to New York and worked there). I can’t change the attitudes of the loons in New York City who think asshats like Bill Di Blasio make for good leaders.

            Why should I (or anybody else) have to subsidize the poor decisions of New York City voters?

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            So, poor areas should defund the police?

          6. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Managed separately? Do away with SALT, collect only Federal, and dole it down to the community needs.

            Oh wait! That’s too “to each…”

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            it’s taxation whether it’s SALT or capital gains… and choices about what to tax and what not…

  2. What happened to ‘Pay Your Fair Share’?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      It went to the top 1%.

  3. Matt Adams Avatar

    Remove all SALT deductions and let them reap the benefits of what they voted into office.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      I agree. If you want to live in an area with sky high taxes and lots of compassionate outreach as well as endless city-style services … good for you. But why should somebody from Wise County subsidize that?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        I thought NoVa subsidized Wise?

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          As far as I can tell, NoVa does subsidize SW Virginia (among other places in Va). However, people in NoVa can always move if they find the economics of living in Northern Virginia unattractive. One of my sons and his girlfriend, both CPAs, just made that decision. Both took new jobs in Texas. They both are making more money and just bought a house that would have cost 50% – 100% more in NoVa.

          Given the advancement of “work from anywhere” due to COVID I expect to see a mini – exodus from many high cost areas where there is a lot of white collar work, including Northern Virginia.

      2. Matt Adams Avatar

        I don’t see it as a method for compassionate outreach, I see it as a means to keep what they consider “riff raff” out of their line of sight.

        Those sky high taxes aren’t doing diddly for the homeless crisis in San Francisco.

        1. Bubba1855 Avatar

          doesn’t anyone remember that the 2017 tax law which included the SALT cap also included an increase in the standard deduction from about $12k to about $24k. if you remove the cap will you also return the standard deduction to $12k?

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            I’m well aware of what was included in the legislation.

            If you’re claiming SALT you’re not taking Standard Deduction.

          2. DJRippert Avatar

            If you remove the cap I expect that you would have to reverse the standard deduction increase too.

        2. DJRippert Avatar

          I prefer to look at New York City. One reason SanFrancisco has a serious homeless problem is because they also have good weather.

          In NYC there are plenty of examples of compassionate out reach including ill-advised ideas like rent control.

          Rent control creates lots of problems:

          https://www.manhattan-institute.org/issues-2020-rent-control-does-not-make-housing-more-affordable

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            I think the median house price of $1.8 million in the bay area has something to do with the mass quantities of homeless. They don’t seem to use all that tax money to set up any sort of help for those who need it.

          2. DJRippert Avatar

            I agree. The mythology of the left holds that societal issues like poverty, homelessness, school quality and affordable housing can be solved through bigger government, more government spending and higher taxes.

            Yet this never seems to happen regardless of how high the taxes or how much the government spends.

            You would think that liberals would look at places like New York City, SanFrancisco and Boston (and increasingly Northern Virginia). The taxes have been hiked. Government has been expanded. But where is the progress?

  4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I agree with you that Democrats are being pretty ingenuous in claiming that repealing the SALT cap would benefit the middle class. Also, they seem somewhat hypocritical when they are arguing for significant tax increases to pay for their $3.5 billion social infrastructure legislation, but, at the same time, are pushing for a tax break for some of their more well-off constituents.

    But, let’s put those issues aside and try to look at the policy in isolation. It is obvious that it was seen as a way for Trump to get at his political foes in New York, California, etc. After all, most of the provisions of that large tax bill were dedicated to cutting taxes. This provision was an exception; it served to raise taxes on a residents in states largely opposed to Trump. I assume that you agree that tax policy should not be used to punish one’s political opponents.

    Your argument against repealing the limit seems to be primarily that the rest of the country, such as Arkansas, should not be required to subsidize what you judge to be high-tax, high spending states. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of provisions in the federal tax code that give a deduction or credit to some favored group. For example, large agricultural operations benefit from significant tax provisions. Why should I be required to subsidize a large, corporate farming operating in Arkansas or Wyoming or Iowa? In addition, the good people of Arkansas probably receive more proportionally in federal benefits than those in some other states.

    If there is a rational reason to provide a federal deduction for state and local taxes, then I fail to see any rationale for a cap. Any cap seems to be purely arbitrary.

    All that being said, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for those affected by the cap. If they have state and local taxes totaling more than $10,000, they can probably afford the extra federal tax they get hit with.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      re: 10K in local/state taxes.

      For our county – a 300K house would tax at 2500 or so I think then they’d also whack you pretty good on a new car… another thousand or so.

      for the state – $5K on 100K of income….

      Make that a 400K-500k home and 125k of household income and you’re there but calling that “middle income” – I dunno.

      Median household income in Va is about 75K… I think.

      NoVa is about $125K – (govt workers mind you).

      1. DJRippert Avatar

        “NoVa is about $125K – (govt workers mind you).”

        Arlington – $120,071, median household income average from 2015 – 2019 in 2019 dollars.

        How that squares with a median sales price for a home at $676,250 remains a mystery to me.

        Lots of young ‘uns renting apartments along with some older, wealthier homeowners I guess.

        Arlington tax rate is $1.013 per $100.

        $676,250 @ $1.013 per $100 = $6850.00
        $120,071 @ 5.25% = $6,303

        Total = $13,153.

        Median family income living in a house purchased at the median sales price.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          and this is middle class?

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            Yes, that’s NOVA middle class.

          2. DJRippert Avatar

            Households making the median income in Arlington ($120,071) are very much living a middle class life given the high costs of NoVa.

            The Weldon Cooper Institute has spent a lot of time calculating relative costs of living across Virginia.

            Despite the seemingly high median household income in Arlington it is not a particularly wealthy area in Virginia after adjusting for cost of living.

            https://demographics.coopercenter.org/reports/virginia-poverty-measure

          3. Matt Adams Avatar

            As a former resident of Fairfax and Loudon county I know all to well. Especially in 2016 when my wife and myself first tossed around the idea of buying a home. At that time the median house price for a 3 bedroom home in Loudoun County was $525k.

            The year before we moved out of our rental, our neighbors sold their townhouse with zero upgrades for $178k profit.

          4. DJRippert Avatar

            So, if I understand your situation … you moved. To a lower cost area. I have no idea how much lower costs (and taxes) impacted your decision to move but you had the option of leaving NoVa. Forcing low spend / low tax areas to subsidize incompetently managed areas like NoVa reduces the options of people to simply leave the areas where the voters are too simple minded to understand the lack of a relationship between high taxes and a good quality of life.

          5. Matt Adams Avatar

            You’re correct, they greatly impacted where we moved to along with family in the area. I couldn’t afford to live in NOVA, even making what I’m making it wasn’t finically sound to do so.

            The only thing NOVA offers is proximity, however with the traffic on 66 it takes the same amount of time to drive up 95 in the mornings.

    2. DJRippert Avatar

      “Why should I be required to subsidize a large, corporate farming operating in Arkansas or Wyoming or Iowa?”

      You shouldn’t. In fact, you shouldn’t be asked to subsidize a family farm either. Why should a family farm get preference over a family restaurant or a family pawn shop for that matter?

      Businesses are businesses.

      So, Trump eliminated one big subsidy. Yeah, he probably did it as punishment but the end result was one less subsidy from the middle class to the rich.

      I say keep the SALT caps and work on eliminating the other special interest rules as well.

      Hitting the $10,000 cap isn’t very hard in a place like NoVa. A $500,000 house in Fairfax County along with a two spouse income of $250,000 and you’re right there. That’s $5,000 in real estate taxes and $12,500 in state income taxes.

      Last July, the median sale price for Arlington County Homes was $730,000. This July, the median sale price was $676,250.

      Over-priced places should de-populate in favor of more efficient areas, especially with the COVID accelerated “work from anywhere” mentality.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        You did not address the question of why have a cap? If there is a legitimate rationale for allowing deducting $9,500 in SALT, why does that rationale not apply to $11,000 in SALT?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          yes. rationale? 10K seems pretty arbitrary

          why should money you pay in taxes to local and state be taxed again anyhow?

          1. DJRippert Avatar

            Why should the income used to pay for necessities like food be taxed again?

        2. DJRippert Avatar

          I’d be fine with no cap. People need to start getting used to paying for the “extras” they expect their local governments to provide. And high-tax / high-spend local governments need to stop thinking that everybody else in the country will subsidize them.

  5. DJRippert Avatar

    Here’s another example of big government, high tax New York City’s abject failure. They can’t even run a jail within minimum standards.

    https://nypost.com/2021/09/09/staffing-shortage-on-rikers-breeding-beatdowns-and-fatal-ods/

    Let me guess … they should raise taxes even further and ask every citizen in the US to subsidize that city’s ongoing failure.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      If you’re looking for perfection in anything including government – you’re never going to be “good”.

      Like individual humans, government is the same – but anytime you think it does not “work”, just consider the GDP of the country, of places like New York and California…etc… that “works” though not perfectly.

  6. Super Brain Avatar
    Super Brain

    The SALT deduction expires 12/31/25 as only business tax changes were made permanent. Individual taxes will be higher than before the 2017 changes due to the roll back of indexing.

  7. On a side note, I’m 99.25% certain that the business calculator featured in the photograph accompanying the article is a Hewlett-Packard HP17bII+.

    And yes, I am a geek…

Leave a Reply