SALT gonna happen or no
- Thread starter NYShoreGuy
- Start date
no one ever talks about the huge tax savings that the increased standard deducion gives to people in states with low taxes. the trump tax laws doubled the standard deducion. 12k not taxable that was the yr before for a couple with no state income tax and a 2k property tax bill.
Yup in every law there's winners and losers.
Everyone says tax the rich. Now it's more difficult for people who can afford to have multiple homes for personal use to use them as a write off. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
You're right. Everyone (well, Democrats for the most part) says the Trump tax bill went to the rich, but it has had a real effect on every working American. Higher standard deductions and lower rates than what was in place before it. If this Congress doesn't extend them, taxes will go up for everyone, regardless of income level.
Well for me, return to SALT tax deductions would be very helpful. The argument that the state of N.J. taxes too much is bs when we are a giver of taxes to poor Red states. Is it any coincidence that most of the states that give more to the federal government then they receive are mostly from blue states. And the states that receive more than they give are poor red states? Why don’t those red states just make do without federal funding? https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-most-and-least-to-federal-revenue/
Why don’t ALL states do without federal funding? Sort of like following that thing call the Constitution.
As that article notes, out of the $1.1T dispersed by to states by the feds, most of that are programs like Medicaid and food stamps. So if you want the red states to make do without federal funding you better be prepared to drastically reduce the size of the social safety net.
Great in theory but not for us poor suffering NJ tax payers. Since they repealed the Christie property tax cap my taxes have gone up double digits the last two years.
I would love an increase in the exemption
Last edited:
Our house is on 1.7 acres in NJ. I know a thing or two about what it meant. I'm just fortunate that our house is in Ocean county - 200 yards away from Monmouth county where the taxes would be even higher by at least a 1.5x multiple. Fix your state's taxes and spending.
Where in the Constitution does it allow the federal government to pay for the states? The Constitution grants enumerated rights to the federal government.
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 Defense and general Welfare of the United States.
Pretty broad powers.
That says nothing about providing funding directly to states. All that refers to is collecting money to run the federal government.
well to be fair it's only one state who cant stop crying about too much federal funding. when they benefit the most. tells you A LOT.
It is broadly worded and giving money to the states for the general welfare of the a United States fits. And the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that.
For you strict constructionist. Let me remind you of the words of Thomas Jefferson.
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Last edited:
Yeah there is really not much up for debate here. The court has confirmed a very broad definition general welfare many times over the last 100 years, even going as far as saying it doesn't matter even if a policy is bad. If congress determines that spending is for the benefit of the country, then it is constitutional unless it infringes on something else.
From the architects of The Constitution:
General Welfare Clause - James Madison’s Warning: Its not about Money - Building Blocks for Liberty
By KrisAnne Hall, JD Article 1 section 8 clause 1 of the Constitution reads: “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…” From this clause, many have construed...
buildingblocksforliberty.org
From the architects of The Constitution:
General Welfare Clause - James Madison’s Warning: Its not about Money - Building Blocks for Liberty
By KrisAnne Hall, JD Article 1 section 8 clause 1 of the Constitution reads: “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…” From this clause, many have construed...buildingblocksforliberty.org
Now do Hamilton, and the Supreme Court for the last 100 years.
Ah SPK still wants to wear the same coat from from 1787 that Jefferson warned about.From the architects of The Constitution:
General Welfare Clause - James Madison’s Warning: Its not about Money - Building Blocks for Liberty
By KrisAnne Hall, JD Article 1 section 8 clause 1 of the Constitution reads: “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…” From this clause, many have construed...buildingblocksforliberty.org
Hamilton had a broader view of the spending clause. By your interpretation (Madison’s view) , Social Security, Medicare would be gone.
Finally, many of the spending clause issues overlap with another broad power of Congress and that is the Commerce Clause.
