But it's not all about jaeger. You didn't object to the Sec. 179 deduction or the 199A tax break or the capital gains tax break - those benefit mostly the wealthy - but are really happy about deductions for ordinary people going away, including for dependents, and since you make $300k or more, the reasons are pretty obvious. You'd like to shift the tax burden downward. You've made that clear. That's fine, but the 95% or more making less than you might not agree.
Sure, and from the perspective of someone making $75k, living in CA or NYC with a median home running $800k, and who can't deduct property taxes or income taxes over $10k, your family that makes $300k can afford to pay more too. If what matters is what's good for YOUR goose, then let's just say THAT and not try to make it about principles of horizontal or vertical equity with tax policy.
I specifically referenced INCOME taxes for a reason, and my ability to deduct income taxes depends on whether I arrange my affairs to get paid a salary or from a qualified business. If the latter, those INCOME taxes are deductible without limits. Those aren't operating expenses like wages or paper or cost of goods sold - the income tax deduction differences condition deductions on how you earned your income, and provide income tax preferences to some source of income over others. The SALT deduction avoids what is a tax on a tax, what individuals pay to state and local governments have been deductible for a long time based on that principle, at least in part.
In the bigger picture, we have itemized deductions in part because of some notion of ability to pay and horizontal equity. It's not the only reason we have them, but ONE idea for itemized deductions, including SALT, is taxes paid to state and local government are not optional and reduce someone's ability to pay federal income taxes. Same with dependents. We don't have children and our ability to pay income taxes greater than a family like my brother's with 5 children, or families who take care of elderly parents, or suffer big casualty losses or who pay $40k in medical expenses because mom got breast cancer, or dad had a heart attack. These aren't clothes or trips or steak dinners or other discretionary spending, but spending that reduces families' ability to pay income taxes. Why shouldn't families with higher non-discretionary spending pay more in income taxes than families with less?