I’ve written a couple of times to explain why the deduction for state and local taxes should be eliminated as part of pro-growth tax reform.
One of my main arguments, as I pointed out at the beginning of this interview, is that Republicans are generally unwilling to finance pro-growth tax changes by restraining government spending.
And since GOPers are too timid on spending, that means “revenue offsets” are needed to finance the good provisions in tax reform (assuming the goal is to make such changes permanent).
But this second-best approach can still be very good if the right loopholes are targeted.
In other words, wiping out the deduction is a good idea as a general principle, but it’s a very good idea in today’s environment since it would produce a lot of revenue to “offset” the cost of lowering tax rates and making our awful tax system less onerous. Plus, the deduction is unfair and inconsistent with principles of good policy.
Many organization point out that generating revenues by getting rid of the state and local deduction would be a win-win situation.
The National Taxpayers Union is not a fan.
…the provision departs from principles of sound tax policy and unwisely abets the behavior of high-tax states, enabling big government.
And the Heritage Foundation doesn’t like the loophole.
The deduction for state and local taxes creates winners and losers within states. Higher-income taxpayers win; lower-income taxpayers lose.
The Tax Foundation has weighed in.
The deduction favors high-income, high-tax states like California and New York, which together receive nearly one-third of the deduction’s total value nationwide.
Along with the American Enterprise Institute.
…repealing the state and local tax deduction would be an important move toward broadening the tax base.
Americans for Tax Reform also opposes the deduction.
…this deduction actually subsidizes upper income earners in high tax states.
And the Center for Freedom and Prosperity has a fact sheet with lots of data.
…nearly all filers (~99.7%) would likely benefit from a lower rate and increased standard deduction notwithstanding the loss of SALT.
National Review rejects the loophole.
Getting rid of state-tax deductibility is…good policy. …deductions mainly benefit higher-income households. …The federal government…should not use the tax code to encourage or discourage.
But the most powerful and persuasive evidence for getting rid of the deduction is that organizations favoring higher taxes and bigger government openly admit that the loophole encourages and enables bad policy (what they would call good policy) at the state and local level. You don’t have to believe me. Here are some passages from a report by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
…with this deduction, higher-income filers are more willing to support state and local taxes. …Ending the SALT deduction would strain state budgets over time by making it harder for states and localities to raise…revenues… The GOP tax plan…would threaten many states’ ability to raise…revenue.
What’s amazing is that the report openly acknowledges that the deduction overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy, something that CBPP normally doesn’t like because of their support for class-warfare taxation.
But if one’s goal is bigger government, you acquiesce to reverse class warfare when it makes life easier for tax-aholic politicians in states such as California, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey.
The lesson for the rest of us, though, is that if CBPP thinks this preference for the rich is worth preserving, the rest of us should want it abolished.
Let’s close with some analysis that is compelling to me. Here’s what Ronald Reagan said when he tried to eliminate this odious loophole back in the 1980s.
P.S. I still prefer the first-best option of tax reform financed by spending restraint. If Republicans simply limited federal spending so it grew by 1.96 percent per year over the next 10 years, that would enable both a balanced budget and a $3 trillion tax cut. And that’s even with static scoring!
P.P.S. Back during the debate on tax reform in the 1980s, Reagan also opposed the VAT. Helps to explain why I admire the Gipper so much.
[…] So the best result is for Biden’s entire agenda to implode. That would be a win for American taxpayers, a win for the American economy, and a win for long-suffering residents of blue states. […]
[…] So the best result is for Biden’s entire agenda to implode. That would be a win for American taxpayers, a win for the American economy, and a win for long-suffering residents of blue states. […]
[…] are pushing through a huge tax hike even though the federal tax code no longer allows taxpayers to fully deduct state and local taxes (though they obviously hope to repeal that provision of the 2017 tax […]
[…] pushing through a huge tax hike even though the federal tax code no longer allows taxpayers to fully deduct state and local taxes (though they obviously hope to repeal that provision of the 2017 tax […]
[…] are pushing through a huge tax hike even though the federal tax code no longer allows taxpayers to fully deduct state and local taxes (though they obviously hope to repeal that provision of the 2017 tax […]
[…] are pushing through a huge tax hike even though the federal tax code no longer allows taxpayers to fully deduct state and local taxes (though they obviously hope to repeal that provision of the 2017 tax […]
[…] are pushing through a huge tax hike even though the federal tax code no longer allows taxpayers to fully deduct state and local taxes (though they obviously hope to repeal that provision of the 2017 tax […]
[…] are pushing through a huge tax hike even though the federal tax code no longer allows taxpayers to fully deduct state and local taxes (though they obviously hope to repeal that provision of the 2017 tax […]
[…] are pushing through a huge tax hike even though the federal tax code no longer allows taxpayers to fully deduct state and local taxes (though they obviously hope to repeal that provision of the 2017 tax […]
[…] are pushing through a huge tax hike even though the federal tax code no longer allows taxpayers to fully deduct state and local taxes (though they obviously hope to repeal that provision of the 2017 tax […]
[…] are pushing through a huge tax hike even though the federal tax code no longer allows taxpayers to fully deduct state and local taxes (though they obviously hope to repeal that provision of the 2017 tax […]
[…] to say, it would be a horrible mistake to reverse that much-needed […]
[…] Because the state and local tax deduction has been curtailed, which means the federal government is no longer aiding and abetting bad fiscal […]
[…] actually somewhat hopeful that we’ll get a lower corporate rate and repeal of the pernicious deduction for state and local income […]
[…] mentioned in the interview that restricting the state and local tax deduction is going to accelerate the flight from high-tax states, which underscores what I wrote earlier […]
[…] mentioned in the interview that restricting the state and local tax deduction is going to accelerate the flight from high-tax states, which underscores what I wrote earlier this […]
[…] the tax reform plan that was enacted in December, especially the lower corporate tax rate and the limit on the deduction for state and local […]
[…] harm. The state and local tax deduction, by contrast, is odious and misguided because it subsidizes bad policy and the home mortgage interest deduction is harmful since it is part of a tax code that tilts the […]
[…] what just happened to the state and local tax deduction. It wasn’t totally repealed, as I would have preferred, but there’s now going to be a $10,000 limit on the amount of state and local taxes that can […]
[…] abolish the deduction for state and local taxes, but a $10,000 cap will substantially curtail the federal tax subsidy for higher taxes by state and local government. The provision is only temporary, so it’s not an unambiguous win, but the whining and […]
[…] I want to focus on the final portion of the interview, when I pontificated on how limiting the state and local tax deduction is going to motivate some successful taxpayers to “vote with their feet” and […]
[…] I’ve repeatedly argued, getting rid of the deduction for state and local taxes is a very desirable policy. On the federal […]
[…] I’ve repeatedly argued, getting rid of the deduction for state and local taxes is a very desirable policy. On the federal […]
[…] critics say it will make it more difficult for state and local governments to raise tax rates (they’re right, but that’s a selling point for […]
[…] Ending the deduction for state and local taxes. […]
[…] say, the right way of doing this is by going after economically harmful tax preferences. I’ve already written (over and over and over again) that the deduction for state and local taxes should be on the […]
[…] Which makes me happy since any agreement presumably will include a lower corporate tax rate and the elimination of the deduction for state and local income taxes. […]
[…] I’ve been saying for months that tax reform will be a worthwhile success if it leads to a significantly lower corporate tax rate and the elimination of the deduction for state and local income taxes. […]
[…] I don’t want to lose sight of two very important goals: Lowering the corporate rate and getting rid of the deduction for state and local income taxes (and I’m still fantasizing about a third goal of death tax […]
[…] I’m actually somewhat hopeful that we’ll get a lower corporate rate and repeal of the pernicious deduction for state and local income […]
[…] I’m an anti-tax libertarian, yet I keep writing favorably about a provision that will raise my taxes. I’m talking specifically about the […]
[…] I’m an anti-tax libertarian, yet I keep writing favorably about a provision that will raise my taxes. I’m talking specifically about the provision, […]
[…] there’s a big debate about whether there should be tax cuts and tax reform in the United States, let’s see what we can learn from […]
[…] Ending the deduction for state and local income taxes. […]
[…] there’s a big debate about whether there should be tax cuts and tax reform in the United States, let’s see what we can learn from […]
[…] encouraging part of the proposal. It generates revenue to use for pro-growth provisions while also eliminating a subsidy for bad policy on the part of state and local […]
[…] the economy will grow faster. They can tell those voters that their state politicians now will be more likely to reduce state income tax burdens. I think those assertions are true, but voters looking at higher tax burdens probably won’t […]
[…] LinkedIn […]
[…] The Best Argument against the State and Local Tax Deduction […]
Dan is using the word “grow” in the ordinary sense, not in the Washington way that the words “cut” or “increase” are used (versus some projection that already incorporates growth as a baseline).
“… If Republicans simply limited federal spending so it grew by 1.96 percent per year over the next 10 years, that would enable both a balanced budget and a $3 trillion tax cut. And that’s even with static scoring!”
Given the projected growth in Entitlement Programs, (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc) that already eat up 70% of the federal budget, that is just a plain LIE.
Dan, you have some explaining to do. …
Here’s a question for you, Dan. I occasionally see these reports about how red states use more services than they pay in in taxes, disparaging small-government types for their seeming hypocrisy. But I wonder whether these studies include the tax deductions for paying state and local income taxes. It seems that given the progressive understanding of who owns the money, a deduction for SALT would have to be considered a federal expenditure and should be counted in the totals of federal money sent to the various states.