Democrats should say they'll restore the full State Income & Property deduction for wage earners

[CreekDog]

Or restore it to the way it was prior to the tax bill (this is nicknamed the "SALT" tax deduction -State and Local Tax)

It's not the only major point Democrats should make, but it's a big deal to lots of voters they will likely need to flip Senate and House seats.

There are millions of middle and upper middle class folks who bought homes based on the tax laws and in fact, they may have been the difference in being able to afford their home now. So the new tax bill was a changing of the rules that will have a net cost to millions of people who are not rich --and this increase isn't to give people Medicaid, or more food stamps or increase the Earned Income Tax Credit, or establish national leave programs. It's to give the fabulously wealthy big tax cuts.

So Democrats, just run on the promise to undo that part of the tax bill.

It's a simple message, it's clear and lots of people care about it.

The message on taxes shouldn't be complicated. Thanks to the Republican tax bill, this message is there for you, as uncomplicated as can be. The swing voters will know what it means and it will matter.

[msongs]

1. maybe they should say something people will understand. what is a SALT? nt

[CreekDog]

3. I edited and spelled out the acronym

[msongs]

12. appreciated, thanx nt

[pangaia]

53. At best, some dopers may think it is Strategic Arms Limitation Talks

hell at first I did.

[NCjack]

81. DEMs only need to say that when we take the House in 2018, we will repeal the Trump Tax Act.

And, the Senators who try to stop it will be targeted for recall.

[DonaldsRump]

2. Fabulous post

The only question I have is how to counter some of the voters in red states saying that the blue states like CA and NY are siphoning off federal funds. I've also heard them criticize the expenditures of these states and salaries paid to government employees.

The SALT issue is huge for many folks in many states, but how do you make the issue resonate for those that are not going to experience major SALT fallout?

[CreekDog]

4. this is not about that, it's about not raising the taxes of working people

if you want them to get into arguments about how much gov't employees make, etc. then this isn't the argument for you. this is about a platform position of a candidate.

[pnwmom]

6. The OPPOSITE is true. The blue, highly urban states pay more TO the federal government

than they receive BACK in the form of services. The opposite is the case with the more rural, red states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/10/30/blue-states-already-subsidize-red-states-now-red-states-want-even-more/?utm_term=.6340fcd8bd7a

Blue states already subsidize red states. Now red states want even more.

What the state and local tax deduction fight is really about.

Hailing elimination as tool to offset some of the huge rate cuts Republicans seek on corporate incomes and high earners, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) asserted that SALT unfairly subsidizes “big government states” and creates a situation in which “states that actually got their act together pay for states that didn’t.”

Defenders of the deduction, including Republicans from states such as New York and New Jersey, counter that even after the deduction, their states pay far more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending. By that standard, wealthy populous blue states such as California subsidize less developed mostly red states. South Carolina, for example, despite its long history of opposition to the federal government, takes nearly $4 in federal spending for every dollar its citizens pay in federal taxes.

For 80 years, residents of the populous, high-tax (and today mostly blue) states have subsidized their fellow citizens in lower income, lower tax (and today mostly red) states. Ryan and other advocates of SALT elimination portray the deduction as an unfair burden imposed by spendthrift regions on better functioning states. But in fact, congressional Republicans’ plan to eliminate the SALT deduction is the latest battleground in this long-running regional conflict over the federal balance of payments — one that has, paradoxically, showered federal largesse most lavishly on the opponents of big government.

[Sophia4]

8. The problem is that the cost of living in states with large urban centers is much

higher, especially with regard to housing, than it is in states that don't have huge urban centers. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Silicon Valley and New York City are good examples of areas with high living costs.

People in red states think that the housing costs so much because we in these large urban areas have a lot of money. They don't realize that, for instance, in Los Angeles, houses are on the average smaller for the money than they are in less populated states. They don't realize how much it costs to live in the urbanized states that tend to be blue states.

So the incomes of government employees here in blue California are simply competitive with other incomes of employees in the private sector -- lower for government jobs than for comparable jobs in the private sector most likely. I don't know that the government jobs pay less than private jobs, but I suspect so.

We have two economies.

The housing in Silicon Valley is priced out of this world.

[Honeycombe8]

15. There are other large urban centers, and they are not on the E and W coast.

Dallas, TX
Houston, TX
Chicago, IL
Phoenix, AZ
Philie
San Antonio, TX
Austin, TX
Jacksonville, FL
and others


The COL in all the TX urban centers is less than on the E and W coast. The COL can actually be lower in a big city because of competition, availability of housing and jobs, etc.

[Sophia4]

28. Not like the urban centers of Los Angeles, San Francisco stretching

to the Silicon Valley and New York City plus their suburbs.

Maybe some of the places in Texas are rather large, but the others are small compared to California and New York.

The population of greater Los Angeles (including suburbs) is 18.68 million.

https://www.google.com/search?q=population+greater+Los+Angeles&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

The population of the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex is 7,233,323 according to the 2016 U.S. Census, making it the largest metropolitan area in Texas, the largest in the South, the fourth-largest in the United States, and the tenth-largest in the Americas.
Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas–Fort_Worth_metroplex

The Chicago metropolitan area, or Chicagoland, is the metropolitan area that includes the city of Chicago, Illinois, and its suburbs. With an estimated population of 9.4 million people, it is the third largest metropolitan area in the United States. Wikipedia

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&ei=98FGWoPKEujR0gKZtbi4Dw&q=population+greater+Chicago%2C+Illinois&oq=population+greater+Chicago%2C+Illinois&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1.59506.68842.0.69706.27.27.0.0.0.0.133.2781.10j17.27.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.11.1186...35i39k1j0i13i30k1j33i21k1j33i160k1j0i8i13i30k1.0.VpFwFVVII58

As for Jacksonville, Florida???

A measly 1,345,596.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&ei=98FGWoPKEujR0gKZtbi4Dw&q=population+greater+Jacksonville%2C+fl&oq=population+greater+Jacksonville%2C+fl&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1.42791.45705.0.45953.16.16.0.0.0.0.150.1595.11j5.16.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.16.1589...0j0i8i13i30k1.0.eQzz_HFJ5FI

Then Phoenix, a relatively small town compared to Los Angeles:

As for the 2010 Census, the two-county metropolitan area was reported to have a population of 4,192,887. Metro Phoenix grew by 941,011 people from April 2000 to April 2010, making it one of the fastest growing metro areas in the country.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&ei=w8JGWtbECeKp0gLvoJnYDw&q=population+greater+Phoenix%2C+Az&oq=population+greater+Phoenix%2C+Az&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l4.62773.65510.0.65775.11.11.0.0.0.0.125.1115.6j5.11.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.11.1112...0.0.UHC_W9VW8bM
population greater Phoenix,


If you take just the incorporated areas of the cities, New York City, NY – 8,174,959 is still at the top with Los Angeles, incorporated area population, 3,792,657 coming in second.
https://blog.upack.com/posts/10-largest-us-cities-by-population

But it is unrealistic to view only the incorporated area of Los Angeles or New York as the population of the city because there just is not room in the incorporated area for all the people who live and work in our city. Same for other large cities.

People who live in the rest of the country have utterly no idea of how huge our largest cities are.

[Honeycombe8]

29. Each and every urban center is different. There are many more populous than SF. nt

[Sophia4]

40. I did not mean to suggest that San Francisco is the most populous.

New York City -- especially greater New York including the suburbs and Los Angeles are both larger.

New York City is the largest followed by Los Angeles. I just drove in from Death Valley to Los Angeles. The urban area is huge. Just huge. You drive and drive and it's all urban. Small towners in America have no idea. They come to Disneyland or for the Rose Bowl and think they have seen Los Angeles. No. Our urban area is huge.

[dawg day]

50. Well, since the red states are utterly dependent on federal aid paid mostly by blue state taxpayers-

Tell them that. NY and CA pay far more than they get back in federal taxes. Guess who gets back 7 X more than they pay? (South Carolina, but most southern states do.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

[pnwmom]

5. It also affects all the cities the homes were purchased in, because if property values

go significantly down, they won't have enough tax monies to meet their budgets. So they will have to raise their rates in order to pay for schools, buses, etc.

[Deb]

7. Republicans voted to raise taxes that Democrats intend to lower.

Repeat

[beachbum bob]

9. democrats should say what the tax scam is, a give away to the rich paid for by taxing middleclass

.....and running up the debt to give corporations more profits to keep from their workers and shareholders

[Blue_true]

24. Giveaway to the rich and running up the deficit should be how we approach it.

Also point out that the last two democratic Presidents dramatically REDUCED the deficit, while Reagan, Bush I and Bush II dramatically increased the deficit and debt.

Look, no well paid blue stater that has a well paying job, their kids in good schools, nice roads and lots of cultural choices is going to leave for some poor red state (there are exceptions, around Atlanta and Athens in Georgia, Huntsville in Alabama) unless the gains are clear and there is no real trade off. The Bay Area is expensive for a reason, as is other big vibrant blue regions, there are high paying jobs and innovation there.

[Sophia4]

32. To say nothing of good schools for your children (and yourself), cultural

opportunities, choice of religion, etc.

Backward red states just don't offer what progressive blue states do.

Alabama kids go into the military.

California kids go to community college and on to college or vocational training. The training and educational level of potential employees attracts sophisticated employers to California.

Wake up, red states. You are missing the boat. If you want to compete with China when it comes to wages, OK, but you won't raise the standard of living in your state that way.

[Honeycombe8]

10. I don't think that'll help much. The most hurt are the east & west coast blue states.

Some red states are hurt, I'm sure, but not to the extent the blue ones are.

But campaigning against the "largest tax cut in history for the super wealthy" may help. And that is true.

[CreekDog]

14. there are tons of folks in red and blue states who have lost a substantial deduction

the idea is to appeal to them.

like i said, not our only message, but an important one.

PUT IT BACK, it was taken from you to give the super wealthy tax breaks.

[pnwmom]

93. And ALL of those states should have their GOP representatives voted out,

because they voted to target their own states for DT's punishment.

[Lee-Lee]

11. This promise will be spun as a giveaway to rich blue liberal elites

in all the red and purple states.

Because in all those states in order for your property and local taxes to be so high that is goes over a doubled standard deduction you have to be very wealthy in a real, real expensive house.

While I get the reasoning behind this, because we need to keep those seats from those solidly blue states blue, I think it will hurt in the long run.

The devil will lie in the implementation. Are you going to restore the SALT deductions while keeping the doubling Standard Deduction? If so, then they will scream it is a giveaway only to the select few rich people in high tax states. Are you getting rid of the bigger standard deduction? That will let them scream you are raising middle class taxes to benefit the rich.

And if you allow the doubled standard deduction and the SALT deduction on top of that, how does that affect the deficit because that will mean even less money coming into the Treasury? Is that made up? If not then it makes all the talk about how this will affect the governments income seem hollow.

I expect this will backfire against us in more states than it helps in. I hope I’m wrong, but spending my time here in NC and TN I know how that will be spun, and it won’t help efforts here.

[DonaldsRump]

13. Yep

I think the basic premise of the OP is sound, as living in the Bay Area, the removal of SALT deductions over $10,000 is a killer. Frankly speaking, however, folks in the red states would be delighted to know that the "evil heathens of San Francisco and thereabouts" are getting hurt.

So I don't think this will work well nationally, but it might at an individual state level. For example, the SALT deduction issue card might be played in local Congressional elections, particularly in states like CA. I would use this to target every single California Republican in the House. At the State Assembly/House/Congress level, states that are particularly affected by the SALT issue can go after the local representatives who refuse to do something at a state/local level to ease the burdens arising out of this nonsense.

To me, the big issue to play nationally is the "death tax". I find it laughable in the extreme as to the level of support that something like this has nationally, when in fact it will benefit next to no one numerically speaking. The Repubs have used spin to make this into a passionate issue, and the Dems need to QUICKLY find the basic spin to demonstrate immediately why this tax scam is insane.

I am not expert in this, so perhaps there are other better and more compelling arguments. However, whatever form it takes, it needs to be done in the most simple and compelling terms possible so that, as Sly Stone once said about his songs, "even the dummies will understand."

No offense intended to anyone, but Dems, we need to simplify our messages and do it ASAP.

[Blue_true]

18. The death tax.

Affects the Trump voter living hand to mouth who expects to win a big lottery prize one day.

[Sophia4]

34. Check out housing prices in large, urban areas on Zillow or some other

site that lists sales prices.

We bought our house with a GI loan (no down-payment, cheapest house we could find in Los Angeles) about 30 years ago. It's value has risen incredibly. We really can't believe it because it is only 1440 square feet and nothing to brag about. The kitchen is so small that I cannot fit either the refrigerator or a dishwasher in it.

So the houses in Los Angeles that sell for a lot of money are not owned by what you would call rich people. They are owned by middle class and lower middle class people who build out the garage or rent the upstairs or maybe a room to be able to pay the mortgage. Those who live here barely able to pay their mortgages or rent will not be voting for Republicans in 2018 or 2020. Those of us who are Democrats will work hard to insure that.

[Lee-Lee]

62. I get all that- Im talking about how it will be spun everywhere else

I’m sitting here in NC. People here know what housing prices and taxes are like in LA and NYC, they just don’t care. They think people who choose to live where the housing costs are 10x what they are in most places are rich fools.

The move will be spun as a giveaway to wealthy liberal areas with high taxes. That’s what’s going to happen. You can argue until your blue in the face that it’s not that and they won’t care. For every example like you they will show a Hollywood mansion and say “Democrats are making sure their Hollywood and New York liberal elite friends are getting special breaks on their taxes”. That’s how it will be spun.

People living there won’t see it that way. But none of those people are in a purple state we need to worry about either. NC is a purple stage, and I promise if you start telling them this break is needed because people with homes with values of $500,000+ are having a hard time you won’t get an ounce of sympathy from them and it will be used against us in more states than it helps us.

And since that kind of chance wouldn’t pass without a lot of votes from Democrats in areas where that kind of spin would do harm, it’s a dangerous move at this time.

[Sophia4]

71. I go to parties here, and Californians are joking about"what if California left

the Union." It's just a joke, but . . . .

We are very badly treated.

Our votes don't count in presidential elections -- Nada. 3 million more votes for Hillary and thanks to the idiot conservatives in small states we get idiot Trump in the White house.

We get only two senators. That's for 39 million plus people. Montana gets two for 1.043 million. Just for comparison.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&ei=B8xHWu6iH-fZ0gLhsayoDw&q=california+population&oq=california+population&gs_l=psy-ab.12..35i39k1j0i20i263k1j0i67k1j0i20i263i264k1j0l4j0i7i30k1l2.4493.5666.0.10075.10.8.0.0.0.0.140.609.0j5.5.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..5.5.606....0.WyY0mOdXbSU

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&ei=YcxHWuPwDeuO0gKJ5ajgDw&q=montana+population&oq=montana+population&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1j0i7i30k1j0i20i263k1j0j0i7i30k1l6.149481.150500.0.150676.7.7.0.0.0.0.178.786.3j4.7.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.7.785....0.E7Zt4MaM4ks

Texas gets two senators for 27.86 million people.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&ei=zMtHWqKnG-mH0gKL5pLADw&q=Texas+population&oq=Texas+population&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i67k1j0i20i263k1j0i67k1l3j0i7i30k1l4j0.56376.57266.0.57625.5.5.0.0.0.0.175.652.1j4.5.0....0...1..64.psy-ab..0.5.650...0i13k1.0.IlPC984h6gA

The total population of the United States is 323.1 million.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&ei=-cxHWueNAcec0gKfkZ6YDw&q=united+states+population&oq=united+states+population&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1j0i20i263i264k1j0i7i30k1j0l2j0i7i30k1j0j0i7i30k1j0l2.43272.45254.0.45520.14.14.0.0.0.0.130.1447.1j12.13.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.13.1442...0i13k1.0.N0QLdUAKvyw

Although 1 of 50 states, we are more than 10% of the population here in California.

I know. Online, people from smaller states like Florida, Wyoming, Ohio, Vermont and Texas tell me that California knew that when we joined the union. And someone is circulating a petition to divide our state into three parts.

But we are California, and our plight as a large state only allowed a small voice is a problem. A problem the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen when they decided to make sure slave states joined the Union by giving them more power than their all-white voters deserved.

The contrast between the size of California and the size of the smaller states is too great. Considering that we as a nation cannot claim to be a democracy as long as this injustice exists, this farce of a democratic union, we are supposed to just shut up about it.

We can change our Constitution. We did it so that women can vote. We did it so that senators are directly elected. We need to do it to make sure that we are really a democracy and not some hybrid that cheats people who live in the more populated states like California.

So be it. Justice is justice. Backward is backward. We need to end the electoral college. The whole Russia investigation and the manipulation of voters in smaller states would not be so easy if Californians had an equal voice in the running of our country. There would be other problems, but not the big monster we have right now.

So be it.

[Honeycombe8]

16. The point is that the blue states are already going to vote Democratic.

The Dem candidates don't need to make a special appeal, other than the normal pointing out of the horrible things that have happened and will happen.

The appeal needs to be to the purple states and to the large purple or even red large cities...who might vote Republican.

[Blue_true]

19. The only state that applies to is Texas.

Here in Florida, there is not much of a middleclass, people either have expensive homes or simple homes that don't cost much more that $100,000. Lots of people live in trailers or prefab plastic homes here.

[Honeycombe8]

46. Lots of $200k-$300k houses in Jacksonville, an urban center.

Phoenix is also an urban center.

Pick off major urban centers in ALL states. They are more likely to vote Democratic, I would think.

[Blue_true]

47. In 2008, something like everyone but one major city voted for President Obama. nt

[Honeycombe8]

66. Yes. That's what happens when you target ALL big cities, not just blue ones.

If I remember correctly, that was the Howard Dean strategy of campaigning in all states. Previously, the Dems had focused on the ones most likely to vote for the Dem.

Boy, that was an exciting election, wasn't it? Obama was a different kind of candidate. Unique. And I was a participant in his two elections. This must have been what it felt like to be around for FDR's elections.

[Blue_true]

70. I come from the camp that think that Trumpism will rest on the ash heap of history.

In every case where many voters embraced negativism, the country swung back big in the other direction and got better. President Obama is a natural leader, once Trump gets through messing things up, a vast majority of voters in America will reassert why we made such a good choice electing President Obama twice.

[Honeycombe8]

89. I know I will. The Trumpers will NEVER admit their mistake. Never.

The same as Bushers will go to their graves defending their support for Bush-Cheney. They will NEVER admit his tax cuts added $1 Trillion to the debt or that the Iraq War was unnecessary and false. Never.

[crazycatlady]

20. No but there are red districts in blue states

Those GOP members of congress can be voted out.

I had a conversation with my neighbor today about our GOP congresscritter and how much she wants him to go.

[Honeycombe8]

25. I see. Dem leaders need to appeal to all America.

Blue, red, purple. Working class, middle class, upper class. White, black, Hispanic, etc. The Democratic Party has something to offer everyone who isn't a loony, greedy Trumper or Ayn Rand devotee.

[crazycatlady]

26. I do agree with you

However, someone running for office should first appeal to their district and the unique challenges facing the district.

[Sophia4]

35. There are still lots of Republicans in California.

And they represent the very voters who are likely to be negatively affected by some of the provisions in the tax bill. So we Democrats have a chance to pick up some Republican seats in 2018 and 2020. That is the only good thing about the tax bill.

Democrats need to host a website that allows people to put in what might be their own or someone's income, information about deductions that have been eliminated and new deductions and just let people decide who and whether they will be personally better off under the old tax system or the new one.

That should encourage a lot of Democrats to vote and win some Republicans over to vote for Democrats.

The end of the estate tax is a particular abomination. That will hurt the non-profit sector. Of all the aspects of the new tax bill, that troubles me the most. It removes the incentives for setting up family charities.

[Blue_true]

48. The website is a tremendous idea.

Make it ease to use, secure and promote it endlessly.

[spooky3]

54. It's not just the vote for President that is important; it's also Senate and especially House

elections that this could affect. For example, many Republican House members in NY, NJ, California and even in more purple states such as VA would have trouble keeping their seats if this argument is used and is effective.

[Blue_true]

17. Restore it for primary homes costing less than $500,000.

Anyone that has a house costing more than $500,000 should either be able to forego some deductions, or should buy a cheaper house.

[crazycatlady]

21. THat is not the case everywhere

I wouldn't call a 1BR condo a large McMansion.

[Blue_true]

23. How many 1BR condos cost more than $500,000?

I stick with my point, anyone that has a plus $500,000 can either afford to forego deductions or should buy a less expensive condo.

[crazycatlady]

27. Location is necessary

New York City (and some surrounding areas), Silicon Valley, LA, DC, Boston, etc.

[Blue_true]

37. You make a point.

Top end condos in Boston Ma and Berkley Ca likely run around or over $1 million is the most expensive areas. But my argument is that if a person can not afford that, the person should look elsewhere. In the Bay Area a person can take BART into the pricey areas for work, but live in Morgan Hill or south of that, although MH is more pricey for that exact reason. A similar dynamic works for Boston and NYC. In NYC real estate in Staten Island is not as expensive as the prime parts of the city, Harlem pretty much got gentrification because of it's prime location and lower housing prices.

One thing that is common for all the places that you named is each is an innovation hotbed where people make high salaries, you won't find that in most red states and will find it only in big cities of purple states.

[crazycatlady]

39. There are also industries specific to those cities

My cousin has one of those condos. It's no different than a typical 1BR apartment.

He's the type who hates cold weather and winter, and would do very well moving to a state like FL. What stops him is his job. The industry (theater-- specifically Broadway) is so specific to NYC that he has to live in the metro area if he wants to continue with his job. I watched him work up from recent college grad living with my parents to where he is today. HE'd be crazy to give all of that up just to move to a cheaper area. (He doesn't live in the city proper anymore-- he actually lives across the Hudson in NJ).

[Sophia4]

42. Lots in the urban areas of New York and Los Angeles.

[Sophia4]

36. No. Not in Los Angeles. You can have a modest salary and pay a lot for a home.

You can be house rich but relatively poor in every other way.

We have at least 35,000 homeless in Los Angeles County per night because the housing is so expensive.

There's no sugarcoating the bad news," Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said Wednesday in reaction to a new count that found Los Angeles County’s homeless population has soared 23% over last year.

Here’s a breakdown of the findings:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-homeless-rise-explainer-20170531-htmlstory.html

The City of Los Angeles is only half of the story.
Be sure to read the article at the link and look at the numbers there. It is shocking! Horrifying!

Small towns across America collect food and clothing and try to help the poor, but the poverty in the big cities of America is so overwhelming that such efforts are insufficient. We HAVE TO HAVE government grants and grants from family foundations.

I know. I used to raise money for a homeless shelter. It is an extremely difficult job. Many of the homeless are veterans, but America just uses them and then lets them sleep on the street.

I remember a woman who had a small disability that affected her appearance. She was really very sweet. She told me she had worked as a waitress when she was young, but when she reached 50 and was no longer so pretty, the restaurants did not want to hire her. Probably true although I'm sure her life was tough in many ways.

Republicans are heartless and greedy. There are no two ways about it.

[Blue_true]

45. Throughout history, unless efforts are made by government,

popular places will always be more expensive to live in than less popular places. My guess is that even in Sweden and Norway, it is more pricey to live in the big, popular cities. How do we counteract that reality? I wish I had an answer, anything that is proposed has drawbacks and depends on societal spirit from people across a spectrum.

[CreekDog]

49. how about this: we don't raise taxes on moderate income people in a tax cut bill

it's pretty simple.

the tax bill raises taxes for lots of people of middle and upper middle income. it only modestly cuts them for some lower and middle income folks --in order to provide massive tax cuts to the wealthy.

the Democrats can easily run on fixing the part of the bill that raises taxes on people who live off their wages or pensions and are harmed by the loss of the SALT deduction.

it's not rocket science.

[Blue_true]

56. The discussion was about housing prices in popular cities.

The prices affect the property taxes that people pay. I don't see how you income inequity in that post. I agree that rich people should pay more in taxes, they get more from living in an organized society.

[CreekDog]

58. I posted this thread, I know what it's about despite your attempts to change the subject

I have no time to reason with someone who advocated for passage of the tax bill in an even more egregious form -then in the same thread, stated that voters would punish Democrats for what it would do to the economy.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9915722

[Blue_true]

69. I am not sure what you are talking about. I am not sure that you do. nt

[Wounded Bear]

22. Won't help much in Red states...

most of those don't have high SALT. It should solidify the blue states and maybe even flip some districts there, though.

[eleny]

30. Only wage earners? What about retirees?

I bet a lot of them have mortgaged their homes to pay for their children's education or for medical care.

Or am I reading this wrong? I hope so.

[Ms. Toad]

41. Primarily wage earners.

state and local taxes are primarily (earned) income taxes paid to State and Local (SALT) governmental entities.

Nothing to do with mortgage interest or property taxes.

[eleny]

44. Thanks!!!

Long day today. I appreciate the clarification!

But jeez, we won't be motivated to move. We get a % break on our taxes because one of us 65 and we've lived in this house 20 years or more. Guess we'll be staying put.

[CreekDog]

60. Property taxes are State and Local Taxes (SALT)

you should delete your post, because it's factually wrong and could mislead people about their taxes.

[spooky3]

76. +1

[Ms. Toad]

88. Actually, they are not.

SALT taxes are either income taxes (or sales taxes), and are deducted on lines 5. Property taxes are deducted on line 6, and are part of taxes that are deductible - but not part of SALT (unless the proponent was just speaking imprecisely).

[spooky3]

90. the proponent WAS speaking imprecisely; it's a problem with a LOT of the discussion of the

new tax law. Property taxes are paid to state and local authorities, so they are accurately described under the general category state and local taxes. State and local income taxes would be another type of tax paid to those authorities. If a speaker wants to be precise, s/he could use an acronym of SALIT when referring to the income taxes.

The law change is a huge problem, because in many parts of the country, especially in expensive cities, residents' state and local income taxes and property taxes combined often exceed $10000 by considerable amounts.

[Ms. Toad]

87. Generally, they are not considered SALT

Anyone calling property taxes part of SALT is not intimately familar with tax forms and terminology.

SALT taxes are those listed on lines 5a & b of Schedule A:

State and local (check only one box):
a Income taxes, or
b General sales taxes }

In other words either income taxes paid to state and local governments OR sales taxes. You have to choose one or the other. Most people choose to deduct income taxes.

Property taxes are a different item, they are within the taxes section on Schedule A, but they are deducted on the line for property taxes, not on the SALT line ("State and Local" Taxes (SALT)).

(Not to mention that the tax bill did not eliminate the deductibility of property taxes - it capped it at $10,000.)

It woudn't be a bad idea to include restoration of the property taxes in the call, but to the extent the call is to restore the SALT deduction, it is limited to a call to restore the deductibility of income taxes or sales taxes.

[spooky3]

91. not correct

Please see this Washington Post article, for starters:

"On Dec. 22, Trump signed into the law the new Republican tax bill overhauling the tax code. A key provision of the bill modifies a long-standing tax break that allowed individuals to deduct from their federal taxable income any state and local taxes paid that year, including real estate or property taxes." (my bold)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/27/essential-questions-and-answers-about-prepaying-your-property-taxes/?utm_term=.e23af94e6d43

more quotes:

"The new bill only lets people deduct up to $10,000 in state and local taxes, including property taxes. For instance, a household that pays $8,000 in property taxes and $12,000 in state and local income taxes currently can deduct $20,000 from their federal taxable income. If they pay an average 20 percent tax rate, that means they would save $4,000 on their overall tax bill thanks to the deduction.

But in April 2019, when they file their 2018 taxes, they could claim just $10,000 in state and local tax deductions. For simplicity's sake, if they are still paying a 20 percent tax rate, now they would save just $2,000 off their tax bill. (Authors of the bill say that for most people, the deduction’s reduced value is well offset by other beneficial provisions of the new law, including lower federal tax rates.)"

Further, you can go directly to the IRS site for their use of the terminology for 2017 (current year, not as changed in 2018):

https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/deductible-taxes-at-a-glance

"You may be able to deduct four kinds of non-business taxes if you itemize deductions using Form 1040, Schedule A, Itemized Deductions (PDF):

state, local and foreign income taxes;
state, local and foreign real estate taxes;
state and local personal property taxes; and
state and local general sales taxes."

[Ms. Toad]

94. Feel free to be inaccurate, if you wish. n/t

[CreekDog]

96. are you trying to say Property Taxes arent deductible?

obviously that’s false.

[CreekDog]

97. you dont understand...just because Ms. Toad posted something completely wrong

Last edited Mon Jan 1, 2018, 06:32 AM - Edit history (1)

she’s not gonna admit or correct her error because she doesn’t make errors.

if she posts something false then the truth is wrong.

i’ve been here a long time and i know that Ms. Toad is NEVER WRONG.

Ms. Toad has never been wrong even when she posts laughably false stuff.

[CreekDog]

95. False, now stop misleading people:

https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/deductible-taxes-at-a-glance
You may be able to deduct four kinds of non-business taxes if you itemize deductions using Form 1040, Schedule A, Itemized Deductions (PDF):

state, local and foreign income taxes;
state, local and foreign real estate taxes;
state and local personal property taxes; and
state and local general sales taxes.
You CANNOT deduct BOTH general sales taxes and income taxes but must choose one or the other.

your insistence on misleading people in order to avoid admitting your mistake is shameful.

you are posting FALSE information wrong either willfully or ignorantly.

[spooky3]

98. You can link a horse to authoritative sources

But you can’t make him accept them, I guess.

[CreekDog]

59. Yes, of course, include retirees, I'd just restore it as it was

It's easy to communicate and helps the same people intended to be helped in the current system.

[eleny]

65. Especially since we know they plan to go after Medicare

Seems like there's going to be enough to unite and motivate all age and economic groups to gotv together. I went to college at a time when you could pay as you go to private college. So there's a natural kinship for me towards college students. They should have like I did, afaic.

[Takket]

31. Not just that but....

Promise to offset the cost of it and the 1.5 trillion deficit the rethugs created by jacking up taxes on the wealthy. They have had a free ride since Reagan. Enough is enough.

[David__77]

33. I do not think this is something to focus much attention on.

As a Californian, I might get some benefit from such a policy. At the same time, I think the Democratic Party should focus on things that will benefit those in the lower four income quintiles!

[Sophia4]

43. True, but we should focus on the tax bill changes too, but not to the

exclusion of other issues that affect working class people.

The tax bill is just the first step in the Republican plundering of our country on behalf of wealthy investors many of whom do not even live on our economy, not really.

They will go after food stamps, Social Security and Medicare next. And that is when we can appeal to Republican voters in red states.

[unitedwethrive]

38. I hope some congresspeople or candidates are reading this!

The SALT issue is one that really hits people on a grassroots level. The line to pre-pay property taxes in my county has been insane this week, and the online payment site has been overwhelmed and knocked off-line. People would relate to anyone who uses this issue in their campaign.

[MichMan]

63. Hard for many to sympathize with those who have the extra $$$ to pay their taxes a year in advance

Last edited Sat Dec 30, 2017, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't believe that the large number of hard working people with families, that struggle monthly to pay their bills and hope to better their lives, are going to find common ground with those who have 15K sitting around to pay their taxes a year ahead of time.

A vast number of people don't have anywhere close to 10K in total savings, much less have the means withdraw that much in cash just to pay property taxes a year in advance. Many who live in lower taxed areas and don't itemize will likely see their take home pay increase with the new tax bill. Not sure efforts to repeal it by candidates will be very effective in getting elected

[unitedwethrive]

72. In the districts we are likely to flip, this is an issue.

In the districts we are likely to flip, this is an issue. Here in California, many of the districts that have Republican representatives are exactly where people live who are highly aware of this.

While I agree it is not of concern to all people, this has been enough of an event in those targeted areas that it some campaigns might want to focus attention here Heck, there have been new stories the last several nights from county offices crowded by people trying to prepay taxes.

It is important for Democrats to grasp the bigger picture, particularly on areas that might flip Republican voters. This needs to be done on a district by district basis, and consider issue that are important to people in different socioeconomic regions.

[SoCalMusicLover]

51. 2021 Is Earliest This Can Happen

So long as the repubs have the White House, nothing the Democrats would pass could go anywhere.

Even if the Democrats take the White House in January 2021, they still have to pass something, and it may not even go into effect for 2021 since the year would be well underway by that time.

[elfin]

52. Not just wage earners, but homeowner retirees

This is going to hit me.

Love my home, and can't believe it will harm my bottom line after it is all paid up and I have plans to stay in the fantastic neighborhood as long as possible. However, my income threshold is now higher due to required IRA distributions, which are eaten up by increased medical costs (thanks, Big Pharma) and needing more household services-- I would hate to have to move from this place due to goddamn politics.

The CPA who does my taxes predicts that this will be one adjustment made in the next year. I don't think so, unless they make up the revenue decrease by cutting something else I need like Medicare, SS etc.

I can't pay my property taxes ahead in this state (Wis.), but have paid my 4th quarter estimate early, which should help a bit, given that my state and property taxes are just a bit over the legislated 10,000 mark.

Walker hasn't made a peep (of course) and Ryan is proclaiming the "exquisite leadership" of his dear leader.

I am screwn. Maybe not for the 2018 IRS as I understand, but for the future. And definitely for my grandchildren.

[Hoyt]

55. SALT doesnt affect the vast majority of people, especially when you take into

account decrease in tax rates. It’s not impacting people who earn under $100,000, except in very rare situations and isn’t going to gain a lot of sympathy from most people.

We need to find other things to run on. Maybe healthcare.

Truthfully, everyone but the poor should be paying more in taxes, especially the wealthy. And we need to drastically cut military spending. But those aren’t platforms that will attract many voters.

[CreekDog]

61. I don't know why you keep characterizing this as something that only benefits rich people

Last edited Sat Dec 30, 2017, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)

And that's false.

For example, someone making 75k/year could see their taxes go up almost $2000 next year under the new law.

Single person age 55, Passaic, New Jersey
Income 75k/year
House value 400k (near median for area)
Bought house in 2005 for 200k
Mortgage is $1200/month (balance is 155k)
State Income tax is $2600/year
Property Taxes are $13000/year


And you keep characterizing examples like this as rich folks.

[Hoyt]

64. Well, let's see. What are you paying in property taxes? Anything less than $7,400 and you don't

cap out with SALT. So, you'd be able to deduct every penny of state income and property taxes.

Even if you pay more -- and I get you live in a high property tax area -- you'd have to pay roughly $14,000 in property taxes (total including the $7,400 above) to lose out with the 3% decrease in rates. I doubt you are close to that if you mortgage including taxes, is $1200, but I don't know for sure especially you pay taxes separate from your mortgage. For your taxes to go up $2000 next year, your property taxes would have to be like $22K.

Most people buying a house next year would have to make more to buy a $400K house, especially in a high property tax area.

[CreekDog]

73. i just gave you an example of someone paying 13,000 in property taxes

Last edited Sat Dec 30, 2017, 04:09 PM - Edit history (1)

why you think it's justifiable to raise taxes on someone making 60k per year is beyond me but you and a few others keep trying to deny or change the subject when I bring it up.

[Hoyt]

78. You did add the property taxes. And what you pay with state taxes will still

not increase your federal taxes. You'd have to be over $14K in property taxes to offset the "savings" you get from the 3 percentage point reduction in rates.

Truthfully, people have had to sell their houses because of property taxes for decades. You still won't have a tax increase and your house is probably appreciating close to $20 K a year. That's not a bad situation.

There are bad aspects of the tax scheme, but don't think this is one for vast majority of people. Exactly what I said earlier.

[Lee-Lee]

74. Thats an insane property tax rate

Is that really how high property taxes are there?

In the county I live in the combined city/county property taxes on a $400,000 home are $2880.

That’s city, county, school, etc.

4-5x that is kind of insane. What are you getting for that????

As I said above in a post, you won’t get any sympathy from most of the nation because your property taxes are so high.

[roamer65]

75. SALT affects states like NY and CA heavily. New England as well.

It should be part of the platform to drive those states to dark blue.

CA has the highest state income tax in the nation. If you make 100k in salary in CA, just the state income tax burns up the new 10k deduction limit.

[spooky3]

77. DC area also

If you make the median income here (to cover very high COL—you definitely are not living a rich lifestyle) you are paying > $5000 in state income tax alone.

[roamer65]

80. Very true.

A lot of Northeastern states have a progressive income tax.

[TexasBushwhacker]

92. I totally agree with your last paragraph

More people need to be paying more taxes. Mitt Romney's comment about 47% of Americans paying no income tax was true. Of course that includes senior citizens and the disabled, but it also includes people making so little that deductions and exemptions leave them with no federal tax liability. But that doesn't mean we need to raise tax rates. What America needs is a RAISE and much less income inequality.

They also need to reinstate the estate tax. America should not be in the business of supporting dynasties.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

57. I am very grateful that I am relatively poor.

My income is decidedly under the national median. It's even below the median in my relatively poor state.

I live on Social Security, a very small pension, and income from savings. I will probably benefit from the increased personal deduction. But I get it that many people have been using the state income and property deduction and NEED that deduction. So I hope they succeed.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

67. "Repeal and replace the Trump Tax Hike!!!"

[roamer65]

68. Restore the SALT for middle class folks.

Hike the top income tax rate to 45 percent. Put the corporate up to 30 pct.

But I am against putting back the deductions for children. We have a population problem on this planet and need to encourage smaller families. Tax policy should reflect that goal.

[CreekDog]

82. your idea on kids is foolish, if you want to reduce population growth, increase standard of living

make women economic equals in society and give them and their families all the family planning they'll need --that reduces population growth via birthrates.

the change you're proposing just makes it more expensive to feed, clothe and house people's kids, which is a way of taking out your anger at population growth on little kids who have done nothing to harm you.

instead of a policy that hurts kids because it makes you feel good, how about one that actually deals with population growth in a way that helps kids, not hurts them?

[roamer65]

83. Respectfully. We will disagree.

There are other ways to support existing people, such as guaranteed basic income. Which I favor completely. But subsidies for having children need to be eliminated.

[CreekDog]

84. just give us the evidence that reducing tax credits for children reduces birthrates

show us an example where reducing a child tax credit or assistance reduces birthrates.

if you can't then maybe your idea isn't as well thought out as you think it is.

[bitterross]

79. Yep, Don't forget SALT used to be Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty. We need some pepper.

I'm old enough to remember that.

On the upside, this is a great strategy. We just need a very simple slogan like MAGA to promote the idea. Seriously, we need to learn from the opposition and steal their methods that work so well.

It has to be simple and easy to understand. Being brainiacs on the Left is good, but we have to remember KISS.

[Hoyt]

85. Let's be glad they didn't start taxing appreciation in your house

when you sold it like they used to do.

[ecstatic]

86. The cap also includes state sales tax deductions for major purchases

In Georgia we have to pay all taxes for new vehicles up front. This year, I was able to deduct over $3000 for the vehicle title tax alone (which ended up causing me to itemize deductions, as I do most years).

I guess my point is, with the 10k property and sales/income tax cap, a lot of regular people will be paying more in red and blue states alike. All so people like trump and Corker can sit on more millions.