i mean, if it discriminates against blue states to repeal the deductions, then why doesn't the existence of the deductions in the first place discriminate against red states?

unless the argument is just that in the aggregate, blue-staters are taxed more heavily than red-staters.

ok, i guess there is a bit of a case. thin one, though.

being punished via the new tax law. And I don't think it will be hard to show that in court, personally, because it's a pretty significant hit.

One could make the same claim about any tax law.

Tax increases on the wealthy impact states with a higher percentage of wealthy people than other states. Taxes on medical devices affect Tennessee and Indiana more than they do some other states.

That’s not uncommon.

As much as I think the $10,000 cap on SALT deductions is silly and was intended to punish the blue New England states and New York, the limit on the SALT deduction will impact only those with fairly sizable incomes and tax liabilities. Granted local property and school taxes in some localities in these states can be very substantial, but it seems hypocritical of Dem lawmakers to scream about taxing the wealthy while at the same time complaining about the deduction cap. I guess that if you’re running for office, you need contributions from those who make in excess of $100,000 though.

From the article : "Tax experts also note that the state and local tax deduction effectively acts as a subsidy to the states, allowing them to raise taxes higher than they otherwise might."

Conversely and not stated in the article, is that withdrawing the tax subsidy might also force states to lower their level of taxes and budgets and services. States with lower property taxes would not lose as much subsidy and would not face that pressure to lower taxes.

The Red-Blue part of the argument seems difficult to prove, but the unequal effect on taxpayers in higher income or wealthier states would seem unequal in some important aspect. Equal protection of the laws, perhaps?

for determining what income taxes states charge. If the "equal protection" argument was valid, the federal government
would have to give the same amount of funding to each and every state. When the Federal Government decides to give states funding for say Medicaid or highways it benefits some states more than others - does that mean such aid is unconstitutional?

I think it's a strong case, and CA should join in too.

due to their tax rate they can just change their rate. All states don't receive the same amount of aid from the Federal government, wouldn't that also count as "unequal protection"?

being treated unfairly.

Do we give up public schools?
Can we get fed gov to pay for route 22 a the side roads leading to Liberty State park?
Should we cut Medicaid?
Local roads leading to Port Elizabeth?

It seems simple until I realize they are trying to make NJ just as stupid, under serviced, and uneducated as Mississippi..

If individuals can deduct state income taxes from their federal taxable income, then residents of high tax states pay federal income tax at a lower rate, all else being equal.

Why should the federal government charge a lower income tax rate to residents of high tax states? Wouldn't it be more fair to tax residents of all the states at the same rate?

With regards to the "Equal Protection" argument, it seems to me that a better argument could be made that the federal government should collect collect taxes at the same rate, regardless of the individual's state of residence and independent of any particular state taxes.

This is why Justice Roberts ruled in favor of Obamacare. The income tax on those that don't have health insurance is constitutional.

Income tax must still comply with the Equal Protection Clause.

But they don’t have to ensure that it affects everyone uniformly, either.

Somewhere down the road, it will be thrown out of court -- but not before it's generated some newspaper articles, broadcast reports, and blog posts, all highlighting the issue.

So it's either a publicity stunt or a valuable public education effort, depending on your point of view.

Lawsuits are expensive. I suppose if the residents of those states have no use for the money that will be used for the lawsuit then it is OK.

I would think that there are better uses for the $$$ than pursuing a frivolous lawsuit that has no hope of succeeding, but guess that the various social agencies that help people don't need any more $$$

Lawsuits are expensive for the average individual. For a state government, it's less significant, and still less for three state governments splitting the cost.

In many lawsuits, the big expense is in preparing for trial (deposing witnesses and hiring experts) and conducting the trial. In this case, there's probably little or no dispute about facts to be tried. Besides, the case probably won't survive to the trial anyway.

The effect of the suit will be to get the issue some attention in the media, attention that would otherwise cost money (for paid ads). My guess is that the value of the publicity will exceed what the lawyers charge to write a few briefs.

.... this is stupid

People with big mortgages get a bigger deduction than those with more modest ones. People with lots of children get bigger deductions than childless couples

But in the case of NJ at least we get back about 62 cents for every dollar we put in.

To the average family here with an income of 60K and paying 8k in property taxes or 2 grand for a half house rental (property owners will definitely increase that rent) asking them to now give 72 cents isn't fair.

It's punishing people for having enough good sense to live in communities where we pay more to do more for others.

Murphy has big plans and consolidating services between boroughs and townships isn't going to be enough.

I'm not willing to give up my 19 person police force (local property taxes) because we need to prop up oil barons in Oklahoma.

Rest assured this money is just going to be given to rich people in red states who think it's funny that their "less than" children are in underfunded schools.

We know the score.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Sixteenth Amendment
The Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Congress passed the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1909, and the states ratified it in 1913. The ratification of the amendment overturned an 1895 U.S. Supreme Court decision that had ruled a 2 percent federal flat tax on incomes over $4,000 unconstitutional (pollock v. farmer's loan & trust co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S. Ct. 673, 39 L. Ed. 759). Article I of the Constitution states that "direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states … according to their respective numbers." By a 5–4 vote, the Court in Pollock held that the new Income Tax was a direct tax insofar as it was based on incomes derived from land and, as such, had to be apportioned among the states. Because the law did not provide for Apportionment, it was unconstitutional.

The decision was unpopular and took the public by surprise because a federal income tax levied during the U.S. Civil War had not been struck down. Critics contended that the conservative majority on the Pollock Court was seeking to protect the economic elite. Industrialization had led to the creation of enormous corporate profits and personal fortunes, which could not be taxed to help pay for escalating federal government services. The Democratic Party made the enactment of a constitutional amendment a plank in its platform beginning in 1896.

The language of the Sixteenth Amendment addressed the issue in Pollock concerning apportionment, repealing the limitation imposed by article I. Soon after the amendment was ratified, Congress established a new personal income tax with rates ranging from 1 to 7 percent on income in excess of $3,000 for a single individual.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/16th+Amendment


If California and New York have a combined population of lets say 30 million, why then should they subsidize Mississippi, and Alabama with a combined population of 10 million...........................

So if I interpret what the above "Article and Amendment" says and if one state has more people to help with the "general welfare" of the state then they (the state and local) have right to tax to maintain the population's general welfare---------right now it appears that since the population of the "blue" states is weighted, then they are in essence being punished by the new tax law, because they have to many people paying a tax to maintain their general welfare, while "red" states don't maintain the general welfare................

that's where they're headed with this lawsuit. It's a bit akin to the large state small state compromise.

and currently run by Robber Baron elites for their own financial and political welfare rather than the common good or the good of the Republic. David McCullough's book "John Adams" delves deeply into Adams' papers and letters, he was always thinking of the viability and future of the new nation, politically, internationally. It is almost as if he didn't anticipate a Leviathan of private interests.

This tax plan is a hatchet job against Blue States. Not at all sure they can overturn it, thought I'd bet in 10 years it will be back to the old way of tax deductions.

----right now it appears that since the population of the "blue" states is weighted, then they are in essence being punished by the new tax law, because they have to many people paying a tax to maintain their general welfare, while "red" states don't maintain the general welfare................

In fact the "red" states, have taken away the means to vote, you know, that little thing to help us or them with our "general Welfare" in the Constitution, like in Alabama by shutting down drivers license buildings to help human beings with their own "general" Welfare rights.

And then this country has the good old state of Kansas, the poster child of what to look for as the model of what a "red" state does when it attacks the "general" Welfare of a state, and in Wisconsin, and Michigan, they are the same path----and then a reward a former Governor from Kansas a corporate trickle down lackey, a has been, gets a new gig, to bring his anointment of trickle down enlightenment to the world, while he attacked children and schools in his state.

I pay my taxes to help my, our "general" Welfare, and that is why I donate to candidates that want me to have my constitutional right to those "general" Welfare provisions, and I want my courts to protect those rights, and presently we have U.S. court that is packed with zealots on the right who went after the voting rights act, labor rights, etc....., and now the lower court is / are being packed with right wing people that don't believe in that right................




November 2018 cannot get here fast enough

Go get 'em

Bleed the blue states in order to provide tax cuts for the wealthy, and turn the blue states into Alabama.

We'll all be Alabama in a few decades! Well, unless the pukes are stopped and this tax abomination reversed.

wouldn't such an argument complicate setting caps that effect 1%'ers if we were to ever tackle a real tax reform?

Plenty of red states also have these taxes, just not the same level.

why the government should help people own a house by deduction for mortgage interest. If they had never started doing this I am sure they country would have survived. There isn't a deduction for car interest but then most people can get a 60 month loan at no interest.

Who bough foreclosed homes here?

I can't help but think there is some sort of I don't know . . . Glee about punishing people or wanting more than a shotgun house in Mississippi.

I've gotta say - reading this thread? I'm glad I don't pay into Social Security the full year. I've never understood why I have to subsidize other peoples parents retirement. I could easily give my mom her social security check in lieu of the government doing so.

There is no legal basis for this, and I question whether they even have standing. The cap is based on an arbitrary number that applies equally to all states. If it set numbers individually to each state, I could see the merit. But it doesn't. This will get tossed.

Is arguing that this constitutes an unfair double-taxation.

Isn't that reasoning essentially the same for their Estate Tax repeal, done at the same time? It's double-taxing the same money? Sure one is 'Same Monies, State vs Federal at same time' vs 'Federal taxes paid in the past and again later on the same monies', but perhaps it could be argued that 'you can't have one without the other'.