I'm going to have to get a new Steve Bingo card - I would not have predicted you being against the federal SALT deduction, which penalizes spending happening at a more local level in the interest of filling federal coffers.
If you're taking listener requests, I'd love to hear an expanded take on it that not only includes the partisan warfare aspects of it (penalizing Democrats who pay more state and local taxes), but also the financial aspects and whether it's a policy in the wrong direction for those of us wishing to pull more decision making and spending (and taxing) to the local level where those policies are more accountable to affected citizens.
Looking forward to the podcast. When I saw "revolution" in the title, I was expecting more of a ripping into of General Milley, and less "Hunger Games". As soon as that's up, I'll be adding your RSS feed to my podcatcher app.
We did discuss Milley. However I’m cynical. The Washington Post published an sensational article about an event reported in a book by Washington Post writers. Then Trump said it was “fake news.” Deja vu anyone? I wonder if DJT get a spiff from Woodward and Bezos to promote books and newspaper subscriptions.
FWIW, I read about Milley from CNN yesterday - not the Washington Post. However, your main point still stands.
On some Twitter feeds (linked to from a Dispatch morning newsletter's comments - we're really in the weeds now!), it seems that folks have alternative sources that contradicts Woodward's story - it'll be good to see those come out.
And now I'll hush so I'm not delaying the inaugural episode of your podcast going up. :-)
Unlimited SALT deductions help reduce the blowback from regular taxpayers when blue state politicians cut unrealistic deals for benefits, pay and pensions with public service unions. It's their way of buying the union vote. And those same politicians are the first to whine when they can't balance the budget and want federal funds for necessities.
I agree with you general statement about things happening at a more local level. States should manage their own affairs in a manner they can afford. The Feds should stick to foreign affairs, defense and a few other things allowed by a strict interpretation of constitutional powers. State laws should govern most routine activities.
I’m looking forward to the upcoming podcast. It’ll be nice to hear you and David discuss various topics aurally. I didn’t follow the Racket News actively until around March or so of this year. But I do remember the podcast you had with your brother Jay and David in the aftermath of 1-6.
As for the SALT federal tax deduction, I’m kind of straddling the fence on this issue. I haven’t really been impacted all that much to the changes to SALT from the tax reform legislation a few years back. I also haven’t paid much attention to the issue until now, so I’m hoping to get some of you and David’s more detailed and nuanced, in depth takes on It and other ideas for reforming our tax system at the federal level.
Your position that eliminating the SALT deductions is a giveaway to the rich is way off. I live in California and the tax change hurt more middle income homeowners than anyone else. The whole tax change was a middle finger by the Trump administration to the coasts that didn’t vote for him, regardless of the impact on real people who suffer under state income taxes as well as higher home prices, resulting in higher property taxes.
The average SALT deduction in California was $18,400, so the average lost $8,400 in deductions. But that isn’t an answer because the average could be skewed by high wealth individuals. On July 16, Newsom signed AB-150 which allows a state pass-through entity to pay California income tax on behalf of individuals (and others). The entity takes the deduction with no limit and California issues a tax credit to the taxpayer. Therefore federal income is reduced and no SALT cap. The IRS has approved the arrangement. The issue is moot.
I'm going to have to get a new Steve Bingo card - I would not have predicted you being against the federal SALT deduction, which penalizes spending happening at a more local level in the interest of filling federal coffers.
If you're taking listener requests, I'd love to hear an expanded take on it that not only includes the partisan warfare aspects of it (penalizing Democrats who pay more state and local taxes), but also the financial aspects and whether it's a policy in the wrong direction for those of us wishing to pull more decision making and spending (and taxing) to the local level where those policies are more accountable to affected citizens.
Looking forward to the podcast. When I saw "revolution" in the title, I was expecting more of a ripping into of General Milley, and less "Hunger Games". As soon as that's up, I'll be adding your RSS feed to my podcatcher app.
Keep up the good work, guys!
We did discuss Milley. However I’m cynical. The Washington Post published an sensational article about an event reported in a book by Washington Post writers. Then Trump said it was “fake news.” Deja vu anyone? I wonder if DJT get a spiff from Woodward and Bezos to promote books and newspaper subscriptions.
FWIW, I read about Milley from CNN yesterday - not the Washington Post. However, your main point still stands.
On some Twitter feeds (linked to from a Dispatch morning newsletter's comments - we're really in the weeds now!), it seems that folks have alternative sources that contradicts Woodward's story - it'll be good to see those come out.
And now I'll hush so I'm not delaying the inaugural episode of your podcast going up. :-)
Unlimited SALT deductions help reduce the blowback from regular taxpayers when blue state politicians cut unrealistic deals for benefits, pay and pensions with public service unions. It's their way of buying the union vote. And those same politicians are the first to whine when they can't balance the budget and want federal funds for necessities.
I agree with you general statement about things happening at a more local level. States should manage their own affairs in a manner they can afford. The Feds should stick to foreign affairs, defense and a few other things allowed by a strict interpretation of constitutional powers. State laws should govern most routine activities.
I’m looking forward to the upcoming podcast. It’ll be nice to hear you and David discuss various topics aurally. I didn’t follow the Racket News actively until around March or so of this year. But I do remember the podcast you had with your brother Jay and David in the aftermath of 1-6.
As for the SALT federal tax deduction, I’m kind of straddling the fence on this issue. I haven’t really been impacted all that much to the changes to SALT from the tax reform legislation a few years back. I also haven’t paid much attention to the issue until now, so I’m hoping to get some of you and David’s more detailed and nuanced, in depth takes on It and other ideas for reforming our tax system at the federal level.
Your position that eliminating the SALT deductions is a giveaway to the rich is way off. I live in California and the tax change hurt more middle income homeowners than anyone else. The whole tax change was a middle finger by the Trump administration to the coasts that didn’t vote for him, regardless of the impact on real people who suffer under state income taxes as well as higher home prices, resulting in higher property taxes.
The average SALT deduction in California was $18,400, so the average lost $8,400 in deductions. But that isn’t an answer because the average could be skewed by high wealth individuals. On July 16, Newsom signed AB-150 which allows a state pass-through entity to pay California income tax on behalf of individuals (and others). The entity takes the deduction with no limit and California issues a tax credit to the taxpayer. Therefore federal income is reduced and no SALT cap. The IRS has approved the arrangement. The issue is moot.