At some point Trump is going to have to deal with California. I’m talking Army,Navy, Air Force and Marines. And jail for a whole lot of treasonous hispanic leaders and a relic liberal from the 70s. Enough is enough of this rogue state.
What this is really about, IMHO, is that these states fear an exodus when the pain of high taxation starts to bite their residents. Instead of addressing the issue honestly, the politicians resort to (possibly illegal) chicanery--although that's nothing new for leftists.
CA should get their own country and stop messing mine up.
How is that not laundering or at least fraud?
Like snowballs in hell, it “aint gonna” happen!
A lot of the comments here seem to overlook an important consideration here: that the general approach California is looking at has already passed muster in a Federal court case some years ago.
“could serve as national boilerplate for skirting Trump’s tax law”
Ok, you go ahead and try that in a non-commie state, and see how you will “skirt” reelection.
de Leon must be a real Ponce.
From the article, “De Leon’s office said that one-third of taxpayers, about 6 million people, itemized deductions on their tax returns and claimed an average of $18,438 for state and local taxes.” So he has mixed in real estate taxes, which remain deductible with the capped state income taxes? If so, then that 6 million number is probably greatly reduced.
So let’s say that this “charity” scheme is implemented and average taxpayer from his 6 million make an $8,438 donation. At best, the taxpayer gets a reduction in taxable income at the maximum bracket rate of 37% or a reduction in federal income tax of $3,122.06. And yes, that would be an incentive to contribute, no avoiding that. It does assume their charitable contributions are not capped (at 60% of AGI), which would reduce the benefit. They are still out $5,315.94.
And that all presupposes the “charity” passes muster. Wouldn’t it be special if the application languished in IRS review for a couple of years á la Lois Learner. Further, the “charity” will probably be run as a slush fund (think Clinton Foundation), buying votes with distributions, buying special access, favoring one class over another, with far less voter control than they would have over legislated distribution schemes. Not to mention lucrative salaries for the ex-pols who would run this slush fund.
And no, de Leon, when you say “The Republican tax plan gives corporations and hedge-fund managers a trillion-dollar tax cut and expects California taxpayers to foot the bill” what has really happened is that the rest of the country is no longer subsidizing your extortionate tax scheme by letting your fat cats pay less than their “fair share” by writing it all off.
Finally, corporations are a pass-through entity. Taxes they pay are included in their pricing to their customers. Reduce their tax burden and the pressure to reduce prices in a competitive market should take care of that.
But it wont.
Grandstanding B/S. Won’t work as legitimate tax deduction.
“De Leon’s bill, if it became law, would essentially allow Americans to deduct much more than the $10,000 limit by redirecting state tax payments into a type of charitable contribution that would be later redirected to the state.”
The courts would nullify the “charitable deduction” for any portion thereof that was redirected to the state treasury, KNOWING the whole law is a scheme to pretend to not tax people in the state, yet have the state take their money anyway from the so-called “charity” meant to launder the funds to evade taxes.
“Trump’s tax law”?
Forcing you to contribute?
Well in the end I think it’s the IRS with statutory authority to judge the validity of charitable contributions.
Then again, I would like to see them do this then watch as all the top Democrat party members find themselves in annual IRS audits and investigations.
The Einsteins strike again!
Who did they call to help them think this one up?
Johnathan Gruber?
Note to California Senate: Scams like this are violations of the tax code. While individuals may not be prosecuted for criminal fraud, they surely will be prosecuted for civil fraud. Furthermore, unless the state is considered a 503 approved facility, it will be disallowed and Lerner is long gone so I don’t think the exempt group is going to make Cal an approved facility either. Lastly, take another hit on your bongs.
A state run and charity?
CA may be well advised to be careful about letting certain genies out of certain bottles.
So, I can choose to donate to certain charities for education, health care, and care for the poor in lieu of paying state taxes? And bypass the whole government bureaucracy when I do that? Sounds like the first steps towards wholesale privatization to me...
Maybe we should let ‘em do it and see where it goes.
I paid $1..... a contribution that was all my state taxes.
Not enough? says who? When you stipulate the amount you are levying a tax