Editorial: Repeal of IRS deductions for state and local taxes unfair to Nevada

Now that Democrats — who have made a career out of demanding soak-the-rich taxes in order to redistribute it to the poor — are in control of the U.S. House of Representatives, one of their first priorities will be to provide a tax break for the rich — in certain Democrat-controlled states.

According to Forbes magazine and others, a top priority will be a repeal of the $10,000 cap on IRS deductions for state and local taxes (SALT) that was part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in December 2017.

According to the Tax Policy Center, three-quarters of any benefit from repealing the SALT deduction cap would go to households making $153,000 or more. The top 1 percent of households, those making $755,000 or more, would receive more than 56 percent of the benefit. The Center calculated repeal would cut federal tax revenues by $620 billion over the coming decade.

The Tax Foundation says 88 percent of the benefits of a repeal would flow to those making more than $100,000 a year.

So a repeal benefits the rich, but just the rich in certain states.

Nevadans — along with residents of New Hampshire, Florida, Wyoming, Texas, South Dakota and Alaska — used to be able to deduct about 1 percent or less of their adjusted gross income, while those who live in New York, Maryland, D.C. and California could deduct more than 5 percent.

Nearly one-third of the additional tax dollars generated by the SALT cap comes from Californians and New Yorkers, both heavily Democratic states.

Using 2010 statistical data from the IRS, the latest available, 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.

Tax fairness? Not hardly.

Sounds like Nevadans would again be paying a disproportionately higher proportion of federal taxes if the SALT cap is repealed.

A version of this editorial appeared this week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel,  Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.

15 comments on “Editorial: Repeal of IRS deductions for state and local taxes unfair to Nevada

  1. Steve says:

    You know that will take more than they have to pass, right?

  2. California and New York have a lot of votes.

  3. Steve says:

    Pass the house, probably. DOA in the Senate. If a miracle happens, Trump’s veto pen is already getting warmed up.

  4. The issue shows how Dems can be duplicitous.

  5. Steve says:

    Duplicity is a bipartisan affliction.

  6. Steve says:

    Oh, probably a good time to mention, the House passes stuff that has little to no chance of passing the Senate, all the time.
    It has become a tool for campaign’s candidates use when they want to claim they voted for something constituents support. All the while the candidate knows full well it was a totally safe vote because it had no chance of ever becoming law.

  7. Anonymous says:


    How to explain your reaction to the democrats wanting to CUT taxes I wonder if not in a similar fashion. All this time I assumed that so many of the positions you held were legitimately principled ones. That didn’t change just because of partisan politics. You’ve contended for years that tax cuts are, if not ALWAYS a good thing, that they surely weren’t EVER a bad thing, and yet here you are attacking tax cuts just because they go to mostly democrats, or at least people who live in states where the politicians are mostly democrats.

    But if it’s the wealthy getting those tax cuts that you’re objectivity to then it’s something I’ve never seen before uttered on these pages.

    All is eventually revealed I guess and it’s not always pretty but there it is.

  8. States like Nevada should not bear a disproportionately largely fed tax burden.

  9. Anonymous says:

    States like Nevada already are dependent on democratic states in that they receive proportionally more of federal tax revenue than they pay. But you knew that.

    How is it that,in light of this fact, you want to punish the job creators and reward the parasites? Unseemly Thomas.


  10. Anonymous says:

    Well that’s Nevada I guess but look at the list the biggest takers of federal taxes are states best described as red, and the states that contribute more and receive fewer tax dollars are best described as blue.

    And now, with the latest tax changes, taking the deduction away, this difference will only increase.

    It’s wrong and I’m surprised, or at least I use to be surprised, that you’d think that was how it should be.

    It’s wrong.

  11. Rincon says:

    This may illustrate something that the Conservatives here say isn’t so; that money actually matters a great deal in elections. One has to ask why the Democrats would adopt a policy that is sure to alienate the vast majority of voters who vote Democratic. The only logical answer is that the Dems want to show their rich donors an effort to get then their old tax dodge back, even though rich Republican donors will benefit similarly. The obvious calculation is that the votes gained from the money donated by rich supporters is greater than the votes lost because the move will alienate those who vote Democratic. Is there another possibility that I’m missing?

    I also want to know, who’s writing this column and what has he done with Thomas? The Thomas I remember ALWAYS railed about tax provisions designed to soak the rich. And it never mattered that some people would suffer proportionally more than others. Now, he’s angry that the Dems want to go back to the original rule allowing the same deduction for all, without excepting the rich.

  12. […] and other Democrats from high tax states would like the law repealed, but, as we told you earlier, that would be unfair to low tax states like Nevada. Nevadans — along with residents of New […]

  13. […] While the four high-tax states view the tax reform as coercive, the rest of the states tend to view the SALT cap as rectifying a long-standing inequity. […]

  14. […] the most egregious aspect, again, is the proposed repeal of the $10,000 cap on IRS deductions for state and local taxes (SALT) that was part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in December […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s