The state income tax deduction is a great illustration of the problems of our tax system

i've heard a lot of rambling on tv about repealing this deduction, because it is probably going to legitimately affect structural issues at the state level across the country. this is solely because those states have chosen to take advantage of the policy (or we can use the word "loophole" to sound like a liberal) and are now inflexible in how to deal with changes in that policy

our tax policy should not be used as a laboratory to subsidize and incentivize behavior for this very reason. taxation is a destructive governmental function (because its very nature is negative for the individual) and accordingly, should be applied as evenly as possible. one major reason for this isn't even a meta-political reason: adjusting the policy becomes almost intractable once a large population has adjusted their behaviors to the policy. this rigidity is terrible

in this specific case, it leads to funny argument twisting.

quote:

---

About 30 percent of all taxpayers claimed the deduction across all income levels, but higher-income households are more likely to claim it.

Taxpayers deducted more than $550 billion in state and local taxes in 2015, according to the Government Finance Officers Association — 75 percent of which was claimed by people with incomes over $100,000.

The Joint Committee on Taxation found that tax expenditures, or lost revenue, for the deduction amounted to $60 billion. Two-thirds of that, or about $40 billion, was accrued by tax returns claiming incomes over $200,000 — roughly the top 20 percent of households. About 3.5 percent, or $2 billion, flowed to the bottom 60 percent of households.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that only 11 percent of taxpayers with incomes under $50,000 claimed the deduction, compared with 82 percent of filers with incomes over $100,000. Repealing the deduction altogether would raise taxes on everyone, but taxpayers with incomes over $100,000 would bear the brunt — over 90 percent — of the tax hike.

---

oh, so this is a tax increase on the rich, correct?

nope

quote:

---

It’s worth noting, however, that the definition of “middle class” is relative and can range drastically by geography. In Ms. Pelosi’s district, for example, the median household income was $106,000 last year, which is almost twice as high as the nationwide median. So the households in San Francisco that claimed the deduction and are considered affluent against a national distribution might be considered middle class in their own city.

---

this "argument" (which isn't really logical considering we're talking about national policy, so national standards) actually makes MY argument, because it's showing exactly why we shouldn't have these very types of discriminatory laws in something like our tax code

you can also use all sorts of "hot topic" examples in place of the state income tax example. the student loan interest deduction, mortgage interest deduction, alimony deduction, tuition waiver deduction, charitable giving deduction, etc. all these examples show is how incentivizing and subsidizing behavior creates new patterns in behaviors that make any meaningful change difficult (impossible?)