re: Why are democrats so obsessed with restoring SALT deductions?

quote:

---

What was your business?

---

consulting.

quote:

---

Businesses didn’t want to hear about the evils of capitalism from you? I’m shocked

---

Naw. One of my clients offered me a lot of money to come on full time, I couldn't turn it down.

It is single filers

A key thing to remember is that salt wasn’t completely scrapped

You can still deduct up to 10,000 dollars in SALT if you choose to itemize. That was an important safety valve amendment for middle class people in high tax states

quote:

---

“Mississippi received $2.13 for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2015, according to the Rockefeller study. West Virginia received $2.07, Kentucky got $1.90 and South Carolina got $1.71.

Meanwhile, New Jersey received 74 cents in federal spending for tax every dollar the state sent to Washington. New York received 81 cents, Connecticut received 82 cents and Massachusetts received 83 cents.”

These NE states with high taxes receive the least money returned per federal tax dollar paid.

It’s not a lie. Find a creditable source stating otherwise.

---

This is a lie. You did not link a creditable source on this issue. The AP wants you to believe it.

ETA: I bookmarked my response to this elementary line of reasoning previously because I know some idiot is going to spout this nonsense every single year. LINK

quote:

---

Here are the federal spending numbers, by state, for FY 2010. I didn't spend time looking for a more recent comparison by dollar amount, but I doubt it has changed much. Are you going to pretend the $333B spent in California means they are less dependent on the federal government than Alabama, where only $56.5B was spent, because of "percentage of state general revenue?"



Image is from this article from California's Legislative Analyst's Office.

If you actually do think Alabama is more dependent on the federal government than California, then the question has to be this: What would happen, in Alabama, if the federal government stopped funding Medicaid, and, as a result, stopped forcing the state to pay for Medicaid, which is the largest use of federal funds, after defense spending, in this state (Source: Alabama's 2015 CAFR)? Do you think we would keep Medicaid spending at the same level (or at all)? What about other government-mandated programs? If the federal government were to suddenly stop mandating and funding all federal programs administered by the states, do you truly believe Alabama would have a harder go of it than California? Or are you simply claiming Alabama should raise its tax rates simply to make your "dependency chart" look "better" for the state? All I see is a state, in California, that is over-taxing its citizens.

Are you smart enough to realize that most of that "dependency" is merely federal government-mandated programs administered by the states and funded by the federal government?

---

The above quote applies pretty much every single time some fool brings up this nonsense argument being fed to you by leftist tools. Use your dang head and a little bit of common sense. This isn't difficult math. "Per capita" numbers mean nothing, and telling me how much my state is forced to spend on Medicaid means little to nothing to me. We didn't want that federal albatross that started the meteoric rise in healthcare costs. It was forced on us. You can't force us to spend federal money and then pretend we're "takers" because you did.

Move out of areas with high COL and taxes then. Problem solved

Because the limousine liberals in their states are howling about it.