I'm not even sure I disagree with your ultimate conclusion, but how you get there leaves much to be desired. Historically, you've always been able to deduct state and local taxes paid against your federal tax calculations. This obviously helps people with high state and local tax liabilities.

I don't know what your definition of wealthy is, but any tax deduction is going to benefit the generic liberal forum warrior's definition of wealthy people because they are the ones paying all the taxes. If I already don't have a tax liability, then lowering it even further doesn't particularly help me, DUCY?

You posted a graph that shows the AGI benefit of repealing this is heavily weighted toward the top 5%. Well guess what, so are the tax receipts.

I originally objected to your claims about this being a loophole, which it most certainly is not. Loophole infers some shenanigans or unintended benefits. Maybe the people who originally wrote the tax code didn't count on certain Democrat states going apeshit with taxes, but it's definitely not a loophole.

You'll definitely hurt more rich people with this because rich people are the ones who pay all the taxes. But as far as net impact to their monthly budget, getting rid of this probably hurts more of the people that you'd claim need the most protection. I'd have to go look up the data on how many people in NY/CA/IL,etc itemized deductions before this went into effect vs after.

Edit: I worded that awkwardly. The current system might be worse for the lower-middle guy than the old one was. OP wants to keep this current system. I might agree with this, but more from a "Don't subsidize NY/CA/IL in general" as opposed to a "Screw the 1%" standpoint.

And historically, tax experts have complained that this deduction was poor tax policy. The law then changed as (a good) part of Trump's 2017 tax bill. I don't see how the historical record here functions as a reason to reinstate the deduction.

First, yes, tax deductions tend to benefit those who pay more in taxes. But removing the SALT cap on deductions is narrowly cast to almost exclusively benefit the wealthy. Middle class people still get to claim this deduction for all or almost all of their SALT taxes (up to $10K) if they itemize. But yes, by noting that deductions primarily benefit the wealthy, you seem to be agreeing with my point.

Okay, we don't agree on the meaning of "loophole" (I don't think it necessarily involves shenanigans or unintended benefits), but I also don't care.

Middle class people also pay taxes. Are you aware that they are currently able to claim the SALT deduction up to 10K? I doubt getting rid of this cap would affect almost any of them in a significant way. And looking at how many people itemized before Trump's tax bill is not very useful since it also almost doubled the standard deduction. In 2016, 80% of people earning between 100K and 500K itemized deductions, in 2018 only 32% did.

I didn't say anything about screwing the 1%. I noted that a bunch of Democratic Congresspeople wanted to change the tax code in a way that would almost exclusively benefit the top 5%, and also distort the tax code in favor of high-tax states. You are reading in culture-war stuff because that is your interest in tax law, not mine. I also don't see how the status quo is worse for the lower-middle class guy - you have asserted this without any argumentation.

As Manchin prepares to whittle down the Infrastructure project Joe Biden has already whittled down in 3 intensive negotiations with himself, I want everyone armed with this as Manchin cries about the impact of more tax on corporations and they push instead to shift the burden in a "compromise" to pay for it to a gas tax, thus shifting far more of the burden to Individuals and away from corporations.



Yes that shows Individuals through Payroll taxes have almost doubled picking up all the slack as Corporations have plummeted. A pure 'shift' from the poorer to the richer, in that regard.

I'm on the fence on the infrastructure bill - favor some parts, oppose others, but if this cuepee fever dream of it including a higher gas tax, (or even better, a carbon tax) was included I'd be much more likely to support it, so go Joe Manchin.

the point is more about the offset that there is now talk of to make it more palatable to Manchin and others who are already complaining about the impact this could have on business taxes.

That offset would be to say 'ok lets compromise and make citizens pay the bulk instead'.

I am not against a carbon tax in general, but if every time a bill is proposed with business taxes raised, and they say 'oh you guys say you want carbon tax, so lets just do that instead', then that is a suckers game.

I'd take a carbon tax over an increase in the corporate tax rate. Addressing climate change should be our first priority imo and a carbon tax would be one of the most effective policies for lowering emissions.

Ya but that is a really a strawman argument.

You are acting like it is either/or and the only way to get a carbon tax is not too tax the corporations.

Biden campaigned on raising taxes on corporations. Full stop.

By your argument Manchin and others could counter every single time a corporate tax is raised with 'no XYZ priority is more important so we should tax that instead'.


The answer to that is ...



...separately and used to fund different initiatives.

Currently there is no carbon tax in the infrastructure bill. You said, watch out for Manchin trying to replace corporate tax with gas/carbon tax. I said, if so, good, gas/carbon tax is an improvement over corporate tax. Any either/or you're reading in here is of your own creation.

I'd be shocked if this didn't have something to do with more sophisticated accounting practices. LLCs and S-corps were still a long way off, but there are other ways.

Also, right around 1966 is when the labor force participation rate jumps significantly. Makes sense that payroll tax receipts would go up. Not everything is a result of evil corporations sticking it to the little guy.

Remember, too, that corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers do.

Ya i am not talking abut replacing a penny of the corporate tax raise with the carbon tax, nor specifically using the carbon tax on this bill.

What I am saying is tax both to pay for government priorities and don't fall into the obvious trap and very deliberate trap of switching out corporate tax for citizen tax by falling for very deliberate bait and switch corporate lobbyist language like "Addressing climate change should be our first priority imo and a carbon tax would be one of the most effective policies for lowering emissions.."

First principle is 'fairness in the tax code'. That ranks higher than 'hey we probably need a carbon tax and you guys who are already paying more should buck up and corporations again get a break'.

There is only one consumer just as there is only one tax payer, ultimately but that statement is still not an absolute.

Companies have target profit margins when they make products and some smash thru them. This leads to paying of big bonuses and things like cash hording (Apple ~$200B) and if instead some of that had to go to corporate taxes, you should not expect an automatic price raise to the customer to cover that.

It is when taxes or new costs impact the target margins they tend to pass that of to the consumer, where price flexibility allows.

Okay, I'm more concerned about stopping climate change, which is on a time-limit. Good to know people's priorities.

I understand the corporate talking point for why it is always more important to shift the tax burden to citizens and away from them so you are not really saying anything illuminating here.


In every single engagement on every single issue your comment applies.

- Gov't - we are considering raising taxes on Corporations for XYZ reasons

- Original Position - I think climate change (issue ABC) is the number one issue and therefore until it is under control I would prefer shifting that burden away from corporations and onto citizens in the form of a Carbon tax.


That should keep the imbalance in place for a generation or two and then I am sure if there is another 'big issue' (ABC) you can then substitute in why again then, corporations should escape these taxes trying to share the burden around in favour of obtaining a 'greater good', that is better served by taxing individuals instead.

I see you're talking to those phantasms in your brain again. Just tell them to leave you alone. I'm not opposed to raising the corporate tax rate right now.

You presented a hypothetical situation where the infrastructure bill increased the gas tax instead of the corporate tax rate. All else being equal, I would prefer raising the gas tax to the corporate tax right now since climate change is a more serious and pressing issue, so that would be a policy improvement in my view, and said so. However, since the reason you raised this hypothetical was mostly about progressive messaging within the Democratic party rather than policy and you ascribed the better policy position to moderates and corporate lobbyists, you are now flailing around trying to withdraw your hypothetical.

Okay, do so. Let's raise both the corporate tax and the gas tax. The infrastructure bill is underfunded as it is. And you can go on pretending that politics does not involve setting priorities.

Like I said, we all are aware of the corporate lobbyist talking point you parrot.

It is true, and you are not wrong, that on almost any topic requiring more revenue generation to offset cost, you can probably find a directed tax at average citizens that might make sense to more directly address behaviour.

We get the 'but...but... why not tax citizens instead as an offset to what you were going to tax corporations' arguments. We have heard corporate lobbyist make them forever.

I prefer the arguments of 'lets get the corporate tax rate up to where it should be to be more fair. Then lets look at how that offsets the spending and then look to other tax revenues to make up the gap.'

Okay, so it looks like we disagree on priorities then. That's fine. You think we should focus first on raising the corporate tax rate and I think if we have to choose we should do a carbon and gas tax first.

You keep trying to make this into some kind of general point about how we can always find better taxes than raising corporate taxes and so put off doing so indefinitely. Maybe so, in which case we should always do those other better taxes. However, really my point is about the actual threat of climate change and America's so-far insufficient response to it. Being concerned about the effects of climate change is not just a corporate PR strategy and it is weird that you're trying to paint it as such.

As I said, there is no reason to believe a Carbon Tax is off the table, especially for Democrats if it not used now and first as a tool to deal with this. Biden has lots of priorities that require lots of money.

We know also that the Republicans (and many corporate Dems) will scream and fight any and all attempts to raise the Corporate tax, regardless of reason and regardless of merit.

The best chance to get any Corporate Tax thru is now. The second best chance is tomorrow. The more you defer on that the less chance you ever get it.

Especially if the voter support for the program or the reason given later is lower than it is now.

This infrastructure bill is amongst the most popular bills across party lines, all time.

At the same time the main thing the Republicans are trying to do to derail is shout "How are you going to pay for it?"

Raising taxes on Corporations and the Uber rich is almost as popular as the Infrastructure Bill across party lines.

So answering "How you are going to pay for it?" with "increasing these taxes", is strategic and smart and gets two very important birds with one stone.

It also puts Republicans in a very terrible position in voting in something sorely desired by their voting being funded by a measure very important to their voting base.

You should be able to acknowledge that your response of "I would rather we shift the burden such that the citizens pay for it" is EXACTLY the argument that we will almost certainly see the Corporations use.

And they won't just use this hear, they will try to find similar rationale any and EVERY time a topic is raised by finding a reason as to why it would be better if the citizens INSTEAD carried the burden.

Do you acknowledge that?

A carbon tax is not off the table, but it doesn't look like the Biden administration is going to push for it, or particularly supports it. Realistically you only get to raise so many taxes as president and a carbon tax is the most important one for Biden to do.

This applies just as much to a carbon tax as to a corporate tax, but since putting a carbon tax in place is a higher priority, we should prefer doing that first as that means it is more likely to actually happen.

Yes, probably more popular among voters than a carbon tax, which is why it would be better to pair the carbon tax with the otherwise popular infrastructure bill and pair the corporate tax with later legislation (if we have to choose).

You're not actually engaging the issue. None of these considerations favor a corporate tax over a carbon tax. You are just listing reasons why you think pairing a corporate tax increase with the infrastructure bill is good. I agree with those reasons, but think they apply even more to combining a carbon tax with the infrastructure bill.

I don't set my views by just opposing whatever I imagine corporations are saying. You favor a worse policy mix here and so are trying to make the conversation about messaging instead of your policy priorities. My position is clear. I think as policy a carbon and gas tax is a better way right now to raise revenue than increasing the corporate tax. Creating incentives for companies and consumers to lower carbon emissions is a greater priority than increasing the percentage of government revenue collected through corporate taxes by a few points. This doesn't imply that I think there are an infinite number of other taxes preferable to raising the corporate tax rate. That invalid inference is something you've created as a way to avoid arguing about whether instituting a carbon tax is more important than raising corporate taxes.

Ya agree to disagree then.

While using all the tools to deal with carbon is needed and a good and all should happen in their time, I find having a situation where the burden of funding gov't expenditures is so badly tilted towards average Citizens and away from Corporations and the uber rich is something that needs to be immediately corrected.

You are suggesting something that would tilt that unfair playing field even more unfairly for the 'greater good' of instead getting a carbon tax in.

Again, I am serious when I say you can probably get paid by corporate lobbyist if you can make your position on enough SM sites to gain an audience for that.

They would see as the perfect corporate stooge/lackey even if you say 'you don't care about that and it would not impact your position'.

Right the playing, Fix the unfairness and then apply a carbon tax and any other needed taxes, to the huge gap that still remains unfunded on other priorities and likely even on infrastructure which I am not even sure if the proposed Corporate tax would fully fund. If it does not then, is the time to utilize the carbon tax to bridge the rest.

Imagine a study is done that shows one block in a community has been paying a significant amount more of property taxes then other blocks that were under taxed for decades. Thus they have over contributed compared to their peers in that respect to all the services they get in their community.

That community still has many dire needs that will require an increase in taxation.

The people over taxed argue that adjustment be FIXED first (not even calling for a 'makeup tax due to the unfairness) and then the new taxes assessed will be a smaller amount and more fairly applied.


Those who enjoyed the benefits argue 'no, these priorities need to take primary consideration. Tax us all now equally again based on the existing (biased and wrong) formula, and lets get these priorities funded. At some later date we can address the inequity, ...if we actually have another date were we need to talk.


I would call that every bit as flawed a methodology as what OP suggests above if the choice was to not to address the inequity before then applying new taxes.

You keep repeating this. Yes, I favor a carbon tax that encourages Americans, who have more carbon emissions per person than anyone else in the world, to instead use something closer to their fair share of global emissions. You instead favor an increase in the corporate tax that would make passing a carbon tax even more difficult.

But also

Sure, I agree to disagree, and also think you function as a corporate stooge/lackey/lobbyist/social media influencer for Koch Industries and other energy corporations.

Some issues create "Strange Bedfellow" scenarios. In the late 1970's and into the 1980's many feminists and groups like the Moral Majority were of one mind with respect to trying to outlaw pornography.