[Gene Eric]

>> In effect, taxpayers in low-tax states and cities, like those in the South, are forced to subsidize the lavish public spending of liberals in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California

What a total crock of BS.

Household tax contributions from CA and NY exceed those from TX. And by much as 50% compared to other “Southern” states.

[Alberta's Child]

In effect, taxpayers in low-tax states and cities, like those in the South, are forced to subsidize the lavish public spending of liberals in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California.

I agree. This is 100% B.S.

What's happening here is that the wealthiest taxpayers in "blue" states like California, New York and most of New England are effectively subsidizing the rest of the country at the Federal level ... and the rest of their own states at the state and local levels.

[JoSixChip]

Your numbers are meaningless without considering the size of the population and the amount of income per individual. the bottom line is that if someone in Wyoming makes $100k and some one in california makes $100k, both should pay the same amount in federal taxes. Otherwise, one is subsidizing the other.

[kabar]

The liberals fear the loss of high earners who will leave the state if they cannot deduct state and local taxes on their federal returns. This is the real reason why NY, CA, and other big liberal states want to keep the deduction.

[TheNext]

FAKE ACCOUNTING

Per capita, doubtful. NY & CA have high population.

Everybody subsidizes their welfare states.

Corporations are not people. Corporation wealth is spread across its customers which is everybody.

[T Ruth]

>> In effect, taxpayers in low-tax states and cities, like those in the South, are forced to subsidize the lavish public spending of liberals in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California

This makes sense to me. In the 35% federal income tax bracket, a New Yorker who pays $10K in state and local taxes reduces his federal income tax by $3.5K. A Georgian who makes the same income pays, say, $6K in state and local taxes, reducing his federal income tax by $2.1K.

So, in NY, $3.5K of state and local taxes is paid by transferring money that would have been paid to the federal gov't to the NY treasury. In GA, it's only $2.1K.

Looked at another way, if the SALT deduction is repealed, then the New Yorker will actually pay $10K in state and local taxes, rather than the $6.5K he pays now. So state government spending will arouse more resistance than when the federal government subsidizes it.