Stop giving high-tax states an IRS deduction

Trump announces tax plan (AP pix)

So Trump has finally come around to our way of thinking.

More than a year ago we noted that Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Ben Carson all had proposed repealing the IRS deduction for state and local taxes, but Trump was vague on the matter.

Nevada is one of only nine states with no state income tax to deduct.

On Wednesday Trump’s one page tax reform plan called for eliminating all deductions except for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

Predictably, the high tax states run by mostly Democrats are whining.

Nevadans — along with residents of New Hampshire, Florida, Wyoming, Texas, South Dakota and Alaska — get to deduct about 1 percent or less of our adjusted gross income, while those who live in New York, Maryland, D.C. and California deduct more than 5 percent. The federal government is effectively subsidizing the spending in those states at the cost the lower tax states.

Using 2010 statistical data from the IRS, you find Californians who filed for state and local income tax deductions claimed deductions of $10,700 per return. Nevadans who filed for the state and local sales tax deduction claimed only $1,430 per return.

Calculated on a per capita basis, Californians claimed $2,116 in federal income tax deductions, while Nevadans claimed only $166 per person for sales tax deductions.

Pro-state-and-local tax deduction groups were quoted as saying, “Any alterations to the deduction would upset the carefully balanced fiscal federalism that has existed since the permanent creation of the federal income tax over 100 years ago.”

It is long past time to upset this unfair tax break. Where do we go to get a rebate for being overtaxed?


28 comments on “Stop giving high-tax states an IRS deduction

  1. noodle35 says:

    I am glad you stay on top of things! You daily mails are interesting and informative. Keep up the good work


    Jim Gregory

  2. Steve says:

    It would be nice to see but I bet it never makes it past the cutting room.

  3. I fear you may be correct. Too many influential people in those Blue States.

  4. Rincon says:

    So now you’re OK with taxing money twice? How about capital gains and the death tax? The view seems to switch depending on who’s ox is being gored.

  5. Rincon says:

    What about sales tax? Get rid of that deduction too?

  6. Rincon says:

    This just in: “Air fares are higher per passenger mile in America than in Europe. “Airlines in North America posted a profit of $22.40 per passenger last year: in Europe, the figure was $7.84. Standards of service were also worse in America. Only one operator based in America can be found in the world’s 30 best carriers…compared with nine from Europe.”

    Socialist Europe seems to be cleaning our clock once again, but not if you’re a stockholder..

  7. Rincon says:

    Oops. my source: The Economist 4/22-28, 2017, p. 11.

  8. Steve says:

    Rincon, you are reading “selectively” again.

    “On Wednesday Trump’s one page tax reform plan called for ELIMINATING ALL DEDUCTIONS except for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.”

    This would include eliminating sales tax.

  9. Steve says:

    Although The Economist is about as center as it gets and at the risk of being called a conspirator, here’s what I found.

  10. If all else fails, read the instructions.

  11. deleted says:

    The farthest of the far right wing are all warm in their “hearts” tonight just dreaming about a world where the hundreds of billions that they currently hoard in some pile somewhere, are set to multiple by more than ten fold by one of their own.

    That’s right billionaires, orange ball is fighting for your “rghts” not just to continue to hoard the hundreds of billions of dollars you do now, while others like the majority of Americans who have less than $1000 in their “hoard” but trillions of dollars, all as part of orange balls plot to turn the country into the same oligarchy he patronizes in Asia.

    To the applause of sycophantic “conservatives” in a few isolated gerrymandered districts. Who are themselves subsidized by blue states and their citizens.

  12. Same old baloney…from the same old tired leftist rag. It’s a barometer…the louder they squeal indicates how good the bill is…or isn’t. They’re getting ready to set their hair on fire again…

  13. Bill says:

    I for one oppose the simplification of the IRS Tax Code. It could have a devastating effect on myriad segments of our economy and cost many workers their jobs.

    We need to examine any proposal that would eliminate the thousands of pages of laws, regulations and interpretations of the Federal Tax Code. That is dangerous. It is well known that taxation can only be equitable if it is incomprehensible. Not unlike Health Care and Health Care Reform.

    If the Tax Code is simplified, scores of tax accountants and tax lawyers might well have to change professional direction lest they suffer irreparable personal income loss. Hundreds of thousands of Estate Planners may well have to seek gainful occupation in some other endeavor than advising people how to die with the least tax impact. Newspapers and other media outlets will lose revenue because estate planning seminars will no longer be advertised and restaurants and other venues will lose income as they will no longer be the sites of such seminars.

    Countless bookkeepers and clerks presently employed by businesses will no longer be needed to perform the basically non-productive tasks but necessary tasks of compiling and accumulating data to insure tax compliance.

    It should be apparent to all that Trump’s tax plan will require a significant number of workers in the tax planning and preparation area to be retrained. Predictably, Trump has failed, refused and neglected to provide funds for such retraining in his tax proposal. At a minimum he should name a Tax Worker Retraining Tsar to oversee this major transition in our economy.

    Typically Trump shows no compassion for those who are presently representing him in his IRS audit. For those suffering from PETS who contribute to this blog it will be a dimple conclusion that Trump’s sole purpose in only proposing tax simplification is to enrich himself, in thato that in the future, he will not have to pay expensive tax experts to prepare his taxes and defend him in future audits.

    Such a conclusion is obvious. Obvious that is, if you are someone who really doesn’t like the Capitalist System and resents the accumulation of wealth by anyone except the government(s) and the governmental leaders or wants all wealth to be redistributed or afflicted with the malady of PETS. (Post Election Trump Syndrome).

  14. Rincon says:

    And the automobile put the horse and buggy people out of business. I agree that getting rid of all deductions suddenly would be catastrophic, but instituted over a couple of decades. I think it is a job worth doing. Getting rid of all deductions (should include charitable and home mortgage deductions as well) would remove a lot of dead weight from our economy and make things a lot more fair, and should also bolster the middle class. People like Mitt Romney would have to start paying the same income percentage on taxes as me. Hallelujah! Does it occur to you that all those minions employed in the tax business are not contributing anything to our standard of living?

    Of course, Mr. Trump’s proposal also includes getting rid of the estate tax and alternative minimum tax, etc. They claim he would also institute “regressive” changes in the tax rates. True or false? Talk about selective reading, Steve.

    “Same old baloney…from the same old tired leftist rag. It’s a barometer…the louder they squeal indicates how good the bill is…or isn’t.” Hard to argue with that. You didn’t say anything.

  15. Steve says:

    “They claim he would also institute “regressive” changes in the tax rates. True or false? Talk about selective reading, Steve.”

    Not selective at all, I didn’t read Patricks NYT post because the NYT is full of shit, by focusing on the one thing their “media bubble” readers want to read, not the whole. As usual.

  16. Rincon says:

    And because you refused to read the NY Times, you appear to have been ignorant of much of Trump’s proposal. That IS selective reading. As I’ve asked, Steve, just how do you decide who tells the truth when you’re convinced that the whole media is a pack of liars?

  17. Steve says:

    The NYT made as many assumptions as did much of the right.
    Sadly, they continue to lean left instead of realizing their not representative of the whole world like they want to be.
    Trumps proposal is lacking in detail.
    This is why I stick to what Mitch said. We won’t know what it does to us until we see where the brackets are set.

    But, please, feel free to keep on making up shit and attributing it to me!

  18. Rincon says:

    Try stating your views clearly. I don’t like guessing your meaning any more than you don’t like my guesses.

  19. Steve says:

    How much more clear could I be?

    Steve says:
    April 27, 2017 at 2:45 pm
    It would be nice to see but I bet it never makes it past the cutting room.

  20. Anonymous says:

    I’m wondering Thomas where the provision is in the Constitution for us little people to have to pay for security for the family of the….president?

    Can you think of any reason why this wouldn’t be considered taxable income for them?

    And, how long are you going to wait to do a column on Trumps attack on the 1st Amendment and libel laws? Not even one?

  21. deleted says:

    Ok guess that counts.

  22. deleted says:

    But what about the rest of what I said?

  23. It is not income. It is an expense. Too much, but an expense.

  24. Steve says:

    Patrick is, once again, showing liberals assume all who don’t support their personal political beliefs must be Trump supporters and FOX News droids.

  25. deleted says:


    If your employer provides your family with security, it’s taxable as income either to you or to them.

    Why is the presidents family any different?

  26. deleted says:

    “A fringe benefit provided in connection with the performance of services, regardless of its form, must be treated as compensation includible in income under §61.”

  27. Steve says:

    I believe it is a result of national security issues.
    In 1917 WW1 was influencing a lot of things and having a President potentially subject to ransom threats was considered a negative that would cost a lot more than money.

    Patrick, you should know this. In fact I think you do, you simply want to stir up a can o’beans as usual.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s