Curious how California would fare as well. Seems like it would be pretty similar.
I'm curious to see if this does pass, if it will have any more effect on 1) people's preferred city's to "base themselves and 2) state legislature changing their tax code to be more reasonable or driving revenue from other places. Paying 50% income tax has got to be a tough pill to swallow.
In the article there is a list of counties affected (measured by highest average deduction for state and local deductions). Top of the list is New York, rank 2-4 are Californian counties. So your hunch is right.
It's good the the AMT is still alive. This is the last remaining provision of the tax code that keeps it relatively fair and partially limits the 'deduct everything' and structuring powers of the rich.
The same outcome can probably be achieved by another system / other changes, but the AMT was added back in to keep the revenue raised the same (with the pass-through company tax cutes), so it clearly would still pull some people.
High-tax states like New York and California won't suffer too much. Their higher taxes have allowed them to build industries that attract people and raise property values.
It seems fair that the rest of the nation should stop subsidizing them. That'll allow smaller states to benefit for a while.
It seems fair that the rest of the nation should stop subsidizing them.
The reality is the exact opposite of what you think. For every $1 New York pays in federal taxes, it receives $0.81 in federal spending. It is New York that subsidizes smaller states, not the other way around, and the proposed tax measure would only increase that inequality.
6 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 23.3 ms ] threadI'm curious to see if this does pass, if it will have any more effect on 1) people's preferred city's to "base themselves and 2) state legislature changing their tax code to be more reasonable or driving revenue from other places. Paying 50% income tax has got to be a tough pill to swallow.
The same outcome can probably be achieved by another system / other changes, but the AMT was added back in to keep the revenue raised the same (with the pass-through company tax cutes), so it clearly would still pull some people.
It seems fair that the rest of the nation should stop subsidizing them. That'll allow smaller states to benefit for a while.
The reality is the exact opposite of what you think. For every $1 New York pays in federal taxes, it receives $0.81 in federal spending. It is New York that subsidizes smaller states, not the other way around, and the proposed tax measure would only increase that inequality.