Posted on 11/21/2017 12:21:42 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
New Jersey is potentially holding off hiking its income tax due to the possibility of the state and local tax deduction being eliminated in the GOP tax plan, according to the president of the New Jersey Senate.
“I’m actually very concerned for the people of this state if this Trump tax happens, and I think we’re going to have to re-evaluate everything once that happens,” Senate President Steve Sweeney said Nov. 15 in reference to hiking the state’s tax rate on the highest earners from 8.97 percent to 10.75 percent.
The Senate tax plan, which was voted out of the Senate Finance Committee Nov. 16, does away with the state and local tax deduction, a tax that allows taxpayers who itemize to deduct from their federal taxable income any property and income taxes paid to state or local governments. Eliminating the state and local tax deduction would provide roughly $1.3 trillion in new revenue for the U.S. government.
Sweeney, who previously maintained, according to the Observer, that “an increase in the marginal tax rate on income above $1 million would be the first bill the state Senate passes when Governor-elect Phil Murphy takes office in January,” appears to be softening his stance.
“I voted for it seven times,” Sweeney said, referring to the millionaires tax. “I’ve said it’s the top priority … But I’m actually getting very, very nervous now with what’s happening in Washington.”
President Donald Trump has been outspoken about reforming the tax code and has said he wants to sign a bill by Christmas.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysignal.com ...
For your perusal . .
(Note: I’m still against the Covert Spending bill, so don’t flame me.)
“I’d still prefer much lower rates from Congress before I support.”
—
I don’t see the sense in not providing deductions for local/state taxes. Why pay taxes of taxes? It’s a robbing Peter to pay Paul type setup.
“pay taxes of taxes?”
should be
“pay taxes on taxes”.
“I don’t see the sense in not providing deductions for local/state taxes.”
Short term pain, very long term gain.
The BIG SPENDING Democrat Donors in Dem-run States are the ones who will get clobbered by this.
Less money for Dems, more pressure on Dems to control spending, from the very people who finance their elections.
(Hollywood, Silicon Valley)
Yeah I am not big on eliminating the state/local tax deduction. I would expect such an uproar that they probably put it back in. I understand Trump’s push for tax simplification but first I’d just like to see taxes cut for everybody instead of this scheme which just pits states against each other.
I'd rather they not lower taxes on the upper 20% of income earners to pay for the local/state tax deduction. But that's not exactly true either. I'd rather that Republicans kept their campaign promises and downsized the federal government and the budget. What they're doing now is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I’m sure that, should Congress be forced to go back to the drawing board, a simple rate cut could be the next option.
#CovertSpendingBills
Property taxes are a wealth tax, not an income tax.
Property taxes should be added to the basis of your house.
“The BIG SPENDING Democrat Donors in Dem-run States are the ones who will get clobbered by this.”
—
Working-class people will be clobbered by this - the political class will do just fine, as always. Big mistake and voters won’t take it out on Democrats.
New Jersey had seen a massive flight of money over the last 15 years due to their confiscatory income and estate taxes on very wealthy taxpayers. This reached the point of absurdity in 2015 when the legislature had to pass a mid-year budget adjustment after ONE TAXPAYER — who was estimated to have paid over $100 million in state income taxes the prior year — moved out of the state.
I could have sworn that the Left in the Northeast claims that tax rates did not influence behavior . . . this kind of confirms that the Left really has been lying about Supply Side incentives all along!
“Working-class people will be clobbered by this”
False...
Average income earners in Dem-run states will be more than offset by the increase in the personal deduction.
BIG SPENDERS are the ones who get clobbered by this. Spend more, deduct more, lose more when it ends.
Those dem areas you speak of already carry the large majority of the tax burden at the federal level. So just because if someone’s political allegiance we wish to punish?
When did conservatism go out the window?
“Average income earners in Dem-run states will be more than offset by the increase in the personal deduction.”
—
All I can say on that is - from your lips to God’s ear, keep your fingers crossed and knock on wood.
Other than that, it’s a stupid move. The Fed shouldn’t be attempting to interfere in state matters in such a clumsy, haphazard Rube Goldberg manner. Financial-wise it should be concentrating on where/how Federal money is being used and cut off that with which it doesn’t support.
I think we’ll just have to disagree here. The citizens in any given state should determine their local budgetary matters at the local state level, without fear of punishment by the Feds. If they like their standard of living and are willing to pay for it, they shouldn’t be punished.
I live in New York and have itemized every year for at least ten years. I say screw New Yorkers and the horses they rode in on. Its time we did whats right for our cause not for ourselves. Do anything possible to screw the assholes who always call for higher taxes knowing they won’t pay them because they have all kinds of tax loopholes. The only thing I ever liked about Romney was his tax plan. Lower rates and limit deductions to 25k or 50k for married couple. Pay lower rates on everthing else. Billionaires could only write off 50k if married. No loopholes for charity or anything else.
Should have been the first option. All this idiocy of giving with the left hand and taking away with the right is not good for anybody.
When I was an accounting major at Illinois a long, long time ago the instructor for the Tax Course said that we would have to memorize 3 rules of taxation; everything else was subject to change, and so we would have to look it up.
Rule #2 was "the only fair tax is the tax that taxes you and not me." It took me a while to figure out exactly what that meant, but I get it now...
Gotcha. Thanks for the ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.