Also hinges on companies not moving out of state.
Which is a trend that's been in place my entire life. For example, #1 for taxes New York State has lost an amazing 18 seats in Congress (and electoral votes) since 1950. It had 45 congressional districts in 1950. It has 27 districts today. It last had that few in 1813-1823.
So I've expected that they will try this. And that they will find some bat**** crazy Obama judge who doesn't mind being reversed who will agree. And that it will eventually be affirmed by a higher court.
New Jersey has had a $10,000 annual cap on state income tax deductions for property tax payments itself, so it will be interesting to see how they dance around that in court. I think Murphy is whistlin' past the graveyard. This is very, very, very bad for high-tax blue state politicians.
Smart republicans running in 2018 can point out how hard dems are working to help their rich taxpayers...Soooo,the whole let the rich pay their fair share was a lie?????
>>This is very, very, very bad for high-tax blue state politicians.<<
Maybe, but not for the reason people think. (See my post #28 above)
Most of their constituents will get a tax break at the federal level unless they’re making a million a year or more, and even some of them won’t see an increase in federal taxes. Rates were cut across the board, after all.
The real issue, I believe, is that federal taxable income rises in most cases under this law, and if a state bases it’s tax table on federal taxable income, they’ll be the ones increasing taxes on their constituents. So, will they realize that and cut their tax rates? In a red or purple state, maybe, but I wouldn’t bet on it in a blue state.
Say Wisconsin legislators realize this and cut their top rate of 6.94%, and the reason for doing so becomes widely known, i.e., to keep from raising taxes on residents due to the change in the federal law.
But CA, NY, IL, and the other usual suspects decline to do so. That’s when the fun really begins.