Understandably most people in high-tax states would be upset by this, but I see it a as a positive overall. This will put more pressure on those states to reduce their tax rates, lest they lose the workers.
Ultimately, I don't think that states like California use tax money responsibly, so the lower the tax rate the better. Democrats will have two options, to lower taxes or lose seats.
Why? California, New York etc are net donor states that contribute tens of billions more to the federal government than they get back, while other states like Alabama get $2 for every dollar contributed. SALT was part of tax code since the introduction of federal income tax in 1913.
For all the right wing complaining about welfare and redistribution of wealth, and states rights, they're more than happy to accept it when they take blue state dollars.
I'm pretty upset at this because despite the relatively high rates of state and local taxes in New York, i have no qualms paying them. Services such as the Department of Environmental Conservation, social services, state parks, education, arts and culturals are effective and well funded compared to most states. I don't think we should be punished for this.
I'd like a citation on your first statement. All things considered, I don't believe either state is contributing more than they get back.
If you like to contribute to those services, you are more than welcome to, but they should not be mandatory contributions. My own view is the smaller the government, the better. Federal and State governments have their place, but it should be up to citizens to decide what matters to them.
It's been analyzed by many groups, multiple times. New York contributes more than it recieves.
The Rockefeller Institute of Government report linked above estimated a deficit of 47 billion dollars in FY 2017 alone.
It should come as no surprise considering these states are home to the some of the most successful economic regions in the country.
Your second point doesn't jive with support of this tax plan. It's forcing a tax hike on productive populated blue states to pay more to the federal government which are less represented in how it's spent compared to rural states. I'd love more state and local control, the last thing I want my taxes going to is more GOP funded military pork.
>Democrats will have two options, to lower taxes or lose seats.
The Republicans in Southern California, New Jersey, and Upstate have two options, to not vote for the reconciled bill in the house or lose their seats and the house majority.
Inaccurate. Orange county voted for Hillary by nearly 9 points while people like Darrel Issa barely hung on. Same for people that hung on in the Bluer parts of Colorado and NoVa like Mike Coffman and Barbara Comstock.
And it's a race to the bottom. If you aren't rich, eat shit.
For those that complain that high tax rates are holding CA and NY back - how do you explain all of the growth and innovation from these states for decades?
Ultimately, I don't think that states like California use tax money responsibly, so the lower the tax rate the better. Democrats will have two options, to lower taxes or lose seats.