• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State and Local Tax Deduction

Do you support ending state and local tax deductions on your Federal taxes? Why or why not?

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 29.6%
  • No

    Votes: 36 66.7%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 2 3.7%

  • Total voters
    54
  • Poll closed .
Great economic argument for having states take over the various programs not specified by the Constitution, i.e. education, welfare, etc., but not for unfairly taxing some people more than others due to state and local deductions. Are you calculating that cost into what the Red states pay that the Blue states do not?

Which red states?

Most of the top donor states happen to be blue and top feeder states are red.

In general, I do not like red and blue divisive arguments and you brought this into it.
That is not where I was going with this as my point was not to disparage any state.
We are the United States.

My point was the states that donate or balance their budgets with state tax revenues and do not feed should not be penalized in the new tax reform.
 
Which red states?

Most of the top donor states happen to be blue and top feeder states are red.

In general, I do not like red and blue divisive arguments and you brought this into it.
That is not where I was going with this as my point was not to disparage any state.
We are the United States.

My point was the states that donate or balance their budgets with state tax revenues and do not feed should not be penalized in the new tax reform.

You would not know it as you have probably not read all of the postings, but I was not the one to introduce the terms. I believe that Federal taxes should be fair for everyone and should not take into account state and local taxes. My suggestion is that the states who tax heavily might want to reduce their state and local taxes so that they are competitive with other states. You want to penalize taxpayers who do not take a dime from the Federal Government just because others do take the money. I'll say it again. This is a great reason to place Federal programs back in the states when they are not covered by the Constitution.
 
You would not know it as you have probably not read all of the postings, but I was not the one to introduce the terms. I believe that Federal taxes should be fair for everyone and should not take into account state and local taxes. My suggestion is that the states who tax heavily might want to reduce their state and local taxes so that they are competitive with other states. You want to penalize taxpayers who do not take a dime from the Federal Government just because others do take the money. I'll say it again. This is a great reason to place Federal programs back in the states when they are not covered by the Constitution.

You introduced the topic of red states and blue states and yes the blue states usually pay more to the feds.
The blue states would win in your scenario as the red states have the most dependency.

I would only support eliminating the state tax deduction if the federal revenues were not tipped to feed the red states while the blue states pay more than they receive.

Competition? I live in an economic prosperous state that has state income tax. We are competitive with low unemployment and high paying jobs. Many of the states that feed at the trough are not competitive and do not have state taxes.

Link me to your proposition.
Does it address this disparity of donors and feeders? Address this disparity and then I might consider giving up the state income tax deduction.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
 
Last edited:
It's the definition of double taxation. I pay my state tax and then have too pay taxes AGAIN on the SAME dollars at the Federal level.

The corporation in which I hold stock pays 36% taxes on the dividends they send me and then I pay income tax on the SAME dollars again. Double taxation.
It is NOT the definition of double taxation. By your definition of double taxation, if the Federal government imposes a 20% tax on income, all is fine, but if it imposes a 10% tax for defense and a 10% tax for social programs, suddenly you're being "double taxed." State taxes and Federal taxes are two different taxes for two different sets of services. It is NOT an example of double taxation.
 
It is NOT the definition of double taxation. By your definition of double taxation, if the Federal government imposes a 20% tax on income, all is fine, but if it imposes a 10% tax for defense and a 10% tax for social programs, suddenly you're being "double taxed." State taxes and Federal taxes are two different taxes for two different sets of services. It is NOT an example of double taxation.

I don't know why you can't get this concept. When the same dollar is taxed twice it is double taxation. Simple as that. It is common practice in the tax code. If I pay a separate 10% tax for defense and separate 10% for social programs, but those payments are NOT deductible when I pay my 20% income tax then those dollars are indeed taxed TWICE.
 
You introduced the topic of red states and blue states and yes the blue states usually pay more to the feds.
The blue states would win in your scenario as the red states have the most dependency.

I would only support eliminating the state tax deduction if the federal revenues were not tipped to feed the red states while the blue states pay more than they receive.

Competition? I live in an economic prosperous state that has state income tax. We are competitive with low unemployment and high paying jobs. Many of the states that feed at the trough are not competitive and do not have state taxes.

Link me to your proposition.
Does it address this disparity of donors and feeders? Address this disparity and then I might consider giving up the state income tax deduction.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

I am not addressing the amounts paid versus received by states. The answer to that problem is to have each state take care of their own needs.

My argument is about individual taxpayers. If all things are perfectly equal between two taxpayers under the tax reform plan and there is a state and local tax deduction, people in lower state tax areas are taxed more on Federal Income Taxes than high tax states.
 
I don't know why you can't get this concept. When the same dollar is taxed twice it is double taxation. Simple as that. It is common practice in the tax code. If I pay a separate 10% tax for defense and separate 10% for social programs, but those payments are NOT deductible when I pay my 20% income tax then those dollars are indeed taxed TWICE.
Yes, I get your personal concept of "double taxation" - it's not the way the term is typically used, for obvious reasons if you take a few minutes to think about it.
 
I give up.

I have used two people making the same identical income in the exact same way and have identical households. Everything is identical and nothing separates the two individuals and neither can deduct state and local taxes, what amount does a person pay on net income before taxes in Federal income taxes if the rate is 12%.

Here is the answer:

For the person in CA, $50,000 times 12% = $6,000
For the person in AZ, $50,000 times 12% = $6,000
For the person in AR, $50,000 times 12% = $6,000
For the person in AL, $50,000 times 12% = $6,000

Let's compare a state with no state income tax to one that does: NV vs CA

The guy in NV makes $50,000.
The guy in CA has an income of $47,854 because the state of CA took $2146 out of his paycheck before he ever saw it.

$6000/50,000 = 12% of income paid in federal taxes
$6000/47854 = 12.54% of income paid in federal taxes
 
Let's compare a state with no state income tax to one that does: NV vs CA

The guy in NV makes $50,000.
The guy in CA has an income of $47,854 because the state of CA took $2146 out of his paycheck before he ever saw it.

$6000/50,000 = 12% of income paid in federal taxes
$6000/47854 = 12.54% of income paid in federal taxes

Apples and oranges
 
As part of tax reform, do you support ending state and local tax deductions on your Federal taxes? Why or why not?

No, because it makes it harder for states to make good investments in their own education and infrastructure while allowing states with low or no income taxes to get a competitive advantage in attracting wealthy residents while letting their schools and infrastructure go to hell. This basically allows states to turn themselves into massive industrial parks, forcing other states to do the same to compete, and causes a race to the bottom.

Imagine the states as Football teams and the Federal government as the commissioner's office. Hoping individual football teams will do an adequate job of checking their players for concussion symptoms before they got back on the field is unrealistic. So expecting individual players to just not commit penaltiels like holding or pass interference. So long as breaking these rules gives a team a competitive advantage in the short term they're going to do it. You can't expect them to police themselves. You need to have independent referees and doctors policing both sides and forcing them to comply with rules and saftey regulations.

This type of tax law would be like the commissioner's office saying okay if you can demonstrate that you are providing your own independent doctor that can be relied on upon and is even more qualified than the doctor we were going to send you, then we'll let you slide because we know you're doing right by your players.

These states are demonstrating that the clearly care about education, and they care about infrastructure and we can trust them to do an excellent job of policing themselves so we'll cut them some slack.

Take for example Minnesota. Minnesota has one of the highest state tax rates in the country, but they also have one of the best school systems not only in the country but arguably the entire world. They're using their tax dollars appropriately so why would the federal government want to stop them? This change will make it harder on states like Minnesota because it force them to compete more with states like the Dakotas for wealthier residents and businesses.
 
If you pay state and local taxes, isn't a sales tax for all practical purposes a tax on "income" that has already been taxed? It might not be termed an income tax, but it does come out of your income.

Yeah...I guess you completely throw out any sort of differentiation all taxes are the same because you pay them to a government and they are all taxes are income taxes because they are paid from your income.

Why don't to you stick to the real issues and explain why you think it's okay to be taxed on income that isn't yours...aka...it's paid to your state/city.
 
No. It's naive to see the move as anything but an attempt to punish blue states.

What??? Are the blue states where all the rich live. I thought all you liberals were all for socking it to the rich.
 
Last edited:
I do not support that.

Why should someone pay income tax on money they have actually pay to their state as an income tax? That's the craziest thing I've heard and would be only the tax I think of that would work that way.

When you pay for a car can you deduct that car off your federal taxes
 
The goal shouldn't be "simple". It should be "fair" and "reasonable" and "efficient". A "simple" solution to taxation would be for the government to take all the money and just send you a check every month for what they figured you were worth. You wouldn't need to file anything or collect any records. It just doesn't get any more simple than that, does it?

I would suggest to gain efficiency you have to keep it simple.
 
As part of tax reform, do you support ending state and local tax deductions on your Federal taxes? Why or why not?

I should have had the qualifier in the poll question, but I missed it. Rats!

Not as part of the current package.

If they did true reform and the deduction you are referring to wasn't just a way to (only slightly) offset the cuts that being handed out by taking breaks from others, I might. I would need the details.

The current GOP plan is nothing but a joke. It will increase the deficit and debt, which you can bet the people supporting this now will complain about as soon as the reality becomes impossible to wave away.

Note that the state I live in does not tax income per se. They take the money via other taxes and fees. It's another joke of a shell game - a way to move the burden from one group to another.
 
No, because it makes it harder for states to make good investments in their own education and infrastructure while allowing states with low or no income taxes to get a competitive advantage in attracting wealthy residents while letting their schools and infrastructure go to hell. This basically allows states to turn themselves into massive industrial parks, forcing other states to do the same to compete, and causes a race to the bottom.

Imagine the states as Football teams and the Federal government as the commissioner's office. Hoping individual football teams will do an adequate job of checking their players for concussion symptoms before they got back on the field is unrealistic. So expecting individual players to just not commit penaltiels like holding or pass interference. So long as breaking these rules gives a team a competitive advantage in the short term they're going to do it. You can't expect them to police themselves. You need to have independent referees and doctors policing both sides and forcing them to comply with rules and saftey regulations.

This type of tax law would be like the commissioner's office saying okay if you can demonstrate that you are providing your own independent doctor that can be relied on upon and is even more qualified than the doctor we were going to send you, then we'll let you slide because we know you're doing right by your players.

These states are demonstrating that the clearly care about education, and they care about infrastructure and we can trust them to do an excellent job of policing themselves so we'll cut them some slack.

Take for example Minnesota. Minnesota has one of the highest state tax rates in the country, but they also have one of the best school systems not only in the country but arguably the entire world. They're using their tax dollars appropriately so why would the federal government want to stop them? This change will make it harder on states like Minnesota because it force them to compete more with states like the Dakotas for wealthier residents and businesses.

You should compare funding sources as it is more than just state tax rates which is being included. I found a site that had Minnesota schools with 6% federal funding, 64% state funding and 30% local funding. In my state, it is 53% local, 36% state and 10% state (sorry it doesn't total exactly), so looking at 1 number (state tax rate) doesn't tell the whole story and certainly not to draw conclusions without sources on how other states "care" about education.
 
Paying for a car is a tax on your income? We are really pushing what an income tax is in this thread.

That may be but you can't deduct it on your federal taxes. You pay a tax in the state you wish to live in, because you choose that state why should you be allowed to deduct that state tax. Some states have no state income tax, move to one of those states.
 
No, because it makes it harder for states to make good investments in their own education and infrastructure while allowing states with low or no income taxes to get a competitive advantage in attracting wealthy residents while letting their schools and infrastructure go to hell. This basically allows states to turn themselves into massive industrial parks, forcing other states to do the same to compete, and causes a race to the bottom.

Imagine the states as Football teams and the Federal government as the commissioner's office. Hoping individual football teams will do an adequate job of checking their players for concussion symptoms before they got back on the field is unrealistic. So expecting individual players to just not commit penaltiels like holding or pass interference. So long as breaking these rules gives a team a competitive advantage in the short term they're going to do it. You can't expect them to police themselves. You need to have independent referees and doctors policing both sides and forcing them to comply with rules and saftey regulations.

This type of tax law would be like the commissioner's office saying okay if you can demonstrate that you are providing your own independent doctor that can be relied on upon and is even more qualified than the doctor we were going to send you, then we'll let you slide because we know you're doing right by your players.

These states are demonstrating that the clearly care about education, and they care about infrastructure and we can trust them to do an excellent job of policing themselves so we'll cut them some slack.

Take for example Minnesota. Minnesota has one of the highest state tax rates in the country, but they also have one of the best school systems not only in the country but arguably the entire world. They're using their tax dollars appropriately so why would the federal government want to stop them? This change will make it harder on states like Minnesota because it force them to compete more with states like the Dakotas for wealthier residents and businesses.

I am sure you will agree that Minnesotans are the ones responsible for their taxes. Why should people in other states pay a higher Federal Tax that Minnesotans?
 
Yeah...I guess you completely throw out any sort of differentiation all taxes are the same because you pay them to a government and they are all taxes are income taxes because they are paid from your income.

Why don't to you stick to the real issues and explain why you think it's okay to be taxed on income that isn't yours...aka...it's paid to your state/city.

I have stuck to the real issue. And that is that state and local tax deduction is unfair. If you pay more for State or Local taxes, that is because you or your representatives want to pay extra. I don't think others should pay more due to your decisions.
 
Let me help you: they won't.... There are people that rely on the medical deductions to pay for catastrophic medical issues, students with large debts, large families and teachers that will almost universally see increases to their tax bill. On average, the tax home pay for the lower 50% will increase by less than 1%. All to finance wealth transfer paid for by middle and lower income tax payers at the cost of adding $1.5T to the national debt.

The bill is utter non-sense to most people making less than $1M annually.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53319
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.98eed71aa7ad

Not to mention that the majority of voters disapprove of the plan. It is losing support by an almost 2 to 1 margin. Stupid is as stupid does. A vote for this plan, for most people, is stupid.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/vot...can-tax-reform-plan-quinnipiac-poll-says.html

But the GOP needs to pass something!
 
Let's compare a state with no state income tax to one that does: NV vs CA

The guy in NV makes $50,000.
The guy in CA has an income of $47,854 because the state of CA took $2146 out of his paycheck before he ever saw it.

$6000/50,000 = 12% of income paid in federal taxes
$6000/47854 = 12.54% of income paid in federal taxes
No, his income is still $50,000. His taxable income might be reduced to $47,854, in which case:

NV: $50,000 x 12% = $6,000
CA: $47,854 x 12% = $5,742 (or 11.5% of income)
 
Not as part of the current package.

If they did true reform and the deduction you are referring to wasn't just a way to (only slightly) offset the cuts that being handed out by taking breaks from others, I might. I would need the details.

The current GOP plan is nothing but a joke. It will increase the deficit and debt, which you can bet the people supporting this now will complain about as soon as the reality becomes impossible to wave away.

Note that the state I live in does not tax income per se. They take the money via other taxes and fees. It's another joke of a shell game - a way to move the burden from one group to another.

You may certainly have your opinion. We differ.
 
That may be but you can't deduct it on your federal taxes. You pay a tax in the state you wish to live in, because you choose that state why should you be allowed to deduct that state tax. Some states have no state income tax, move to one of those states.

Why should citizens in states that pay more than their fair share of federal taxes be punished while red states that are mooches off the federal government get even bigger federal tax breaks? Why is "double taxation" such a crime against humanity but you are fine taxing money actually paid as an income tax?

A better question, why are you willing to screw over a large number of americans to give corporations giant tax breaks.
 
I voted unsure. On one hand, no, because I live in a high tax state and its going to hurt me. On the other hand maybe it will make the state more accountable to its people. We complain about the high tax but when you can deduct it, the complaints don't get much traction. I'm hoping Cuomo is crapping his pants right now, knowing the people will be knocking on his door more forcefully to do something about our high taxes.

Back to the other hand, I don't want to lose the deduction :(
 
Back
Top Bottom