Eliminate Deductions … Err …

BLUE STATE TAX BREAK WILL BE PRESERVED Stop the presses: Fiscal liberals in Washington, D.C. are actually fighting to preserve a tax break!  That’s right … as anti-free market politicians in both parties propose tax hikes ranging from $800 billion (the “Republican” plan) to $1.6 trillion (Barack Obama’s plan), one deduction won’t be on…


Stop the presses: Fiscal liberals in Washington, D.C. are actually fighting to preserve a tax break!  That’s right … as anti-free market politicians in both parties propose tax hikes ranging from $800 billion (the “Republican” plan) to $1.6 trillion (Barack Obama’s plan), one deduction won’t be on the chopping block.

The deduction for taxes paid to state and local governments – which deprives the federal government of an estimated $80 billion annually – won’t be touched during the debate over the “fiscal cliff.”  Why not?  Because it disproportionately benefits voters in “blue states,” i.e. states that voted for Barack Obama.

“Seven of the eight states where taxpayers make the greatest use of the deduction are deep blue on the political maps,” reports CNN Money. “They include California, the most populous state, and Illinois, where President Obama calls home.”

According to the report, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Maryland – all blue states – would also benefit disproportionately from the tax break.

And guess what – the wealthier you are, the more the deduction benefits you.

Obviously we’re not saying that this deduction should be removed.  Far from it.  Forcing Americans to pay federal taxes on the money they’re forced to pay to state and local governments is anathema to everything we believe in.  Having said that, it is curious how the one deduction liberals aren’t targeting is the one that most disproportionately benefits upper income earners in “their” states.


Related posts


Murdaugh Retrial Hearing: Interview With Bill Young

Will Folks
State House

Conservative South Carolina Lawmakers Lead Fight Against CRT

Mark Powell

‘Murdaugh Murders’ Saga: Trial Could Last Into March

Will Folks


BigT December 8, 2012 at 4:59 pm

I say BASH the living H#!! out of these liberals…and let the Conservative States, RESIST Obama’s Government Greed as much as we can….

Spend Millions in the courts fighting EVEY Obama Mandate sent down to us…

I hope EVERY Liberal in this country faces the Reality and fear that they cannot feed their family…and the Food Stamps Run out….

And the Slap the S#!t out of em when they try and blame Bush and the GOP….

Thye nneed to get F^&k#*…

Jan December 9, 2012 at 3:50 pm

What a joke you are. Resist Greed???? SC is a taker state, as are most red states. We get more from the Federal Government than we pay in taxes. All the states named are payer states. I.E. they pay more to the federal government than they receive in return. Most payer states are Blue.

You are an idiot.

dwb619 December 8, 2012 at 6:31 pm

Lets not forget how the administrations of Ronnie “Rayguns” and Bush “the first” eliminated deductions for consumer credit, medical expense(only the amount greater than 7.5% of gross income is deductible), trade association dues(only the amount 2% of gross income is deductible). You don’t have to raise the tax rate ,just eliminate the deductions.
Also , the tried to make medical insurance benefit payments be listed as INCOME.

SparkleCity December 10, 2012 at 9:39 am

All the above were eliminated by RAY-GUN.

I remember it well……..

I got the last year’s worth of energy saving deductions (heavy-duty insulation, passive solar,etc) in 1985 when I was building my house. I was my own general contractor and and have always done my OWN taxes and remember when RAY-GUN eliminated the above tax deductions.

What needs to be done is a combination flat tax and national sales tax.

dwb619 December 10, 2012 at 3:37 pm

Sometimes it is just TOO easy to shut big idio”T” up.

Phil Harmonic December 20, 2012 at 5:07 pm

dwb619—True, but the top marginal rates were reduced significantly and the number of “brackets” cut.

sweepin December 8, 2012 at 6:31 pm

Are you suggesting the Liberals should be less agressive in protecting their wealth than Conservatives? Or, just that they are dumber when it comes to protecting their earnings or their wealth if they, as Conservatives who do likewise would be? Could it be that as a matter of conscience and philosophy they knowingly and willingly espouse a progressive tax structure?

Two basic facts about the efficiency of deductions for tax purposes:

1) The wealthiest and highest income earners typically live in Blue states (California, New York, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusettes, and DC). Thus, those States have on average, the highest incomes by State. By definition, those earners marginal rates of taxation are higher.

2) The higher one’s tax bracket the more a deduction means to one for tax purposes. For example: a $10,000 deduction to one in a 35% tax bracket saves $7,000 in tax savings. In contrast, a $10,000 deduction to one in 15% tax bracket saves $1500.

The tax shelter industry flourished when marginal rates topped 50%. Section 8 Housing carried 2:1 write-offs. One could spend $100,000 in investment of and save $200,000 in taxes. Hence there was no cost to that investment by the investor in the 50% marginal bracket. Some R&D programs carried 2.5:1 and even 3:1 write-offs. Oil & Gas drilling programs carried 2:1 write-offs. Are you beginning to get the picture?

Needless to say, when one has no net cost in an investment when measured as “after tax dollars” or investment “in lieu of taxes” the market becomes over-invested. Sect. 8 Housing did, certain R&D sectors did, and certainly Oil & Gas Drilling programs did as well.

It stands to reason that the average taxpayer in the poorer States (almost all red) (Mississippi, Arkansas, West Va., Alabama, Kentucky) stands to benefit less from a deduction.

This ain’t rocket science, Fits. But it does demand a basic understanding of mathematics.

sweepin December 8, 2012 at 6:33 pm

Correction: a $10,000 investment saves $3500 in the 35% bracket.

sweepin December 8, 2012 at 6:47 pm

The simplest way of stating the issue is a $10,000 in State or local tax deductions means more to a person in the 35% (higher) tax bracket. He feels the bite less.

Poor states = less tax deductions while wealthy = more tax deductions.

Smirks December 9, 2012 at 1:04 am

“Well obviously this is a good deduction that we have no real qualms with, but dammit! Dem libruls!”

You could suggest a cap on that deduction if you don’t like it. Doesn’t bother me, let’s do that!

Old Bike Dude December 9, 2012 at 4:39 pm

I’ve been telling you folks that T works for Fits. The lunacy of this piece proves my point.

This just in. . . December 9, 2012 at 5:55 pm

Billionaires Warn Higher Taxes Could Prevent Them From Buying Politicians

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) — Introducing a new wrinkle into the already fraught fiscal cliff showdown, a consortium of billionaires today warned that if their taxes are raised they will no longer have enough money to buy politicians.

The group, led by casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, commissioned a new study showing that the cost of an average politician has soared exponentially over the past decade.

While the American family has seen increases in the cost of food, health care and education, Mr. Adelson says, “those costs don’t compare with the cost of buying a politician, which has gone through the roof.”

The casino billionaire points to his group’s study, which puts the cost of purchasing an average House member at two million dollars and an average senator at several times that.

“And let’s say you buy a Senator like [South Carolina Senator] Jim DeMint and he decides to quit,” Mr. Adelson says. “Good luck trying to get your money back.”

The Vegas magnate complains that the media has ignored billionaires’ essential role in giving jobs to politicians who would otherwise have difficulty finding “honest work of any kind.”

“Billionaires are providing employment for a group of seriously incompetent and marginal people,” Mr. Adelson says. “You raise taxes on us, and who’s going to create those jobs? I really don’t think people have thought this through.”

Adding insult to injury for America’s billionaires, he says, “the simple dream of someday owning a President is slipping out of reach.”

“People think a billion dollars buys you a President, but they’re wrong,” he says. “It barely gets you a lemon like Mitt Romney.”

9" December 9, 2012 at 9:25 pm

This ‘article’ was so long and involved…Please make the next one shorter.As a ‘writer’ for post-literate American ‘readers’,you should set a limit of say, two sentences a shot,since you say the same Howie Rich bullshit,over and over again-Unless it’s a subject where you have some idea what you’re talking about,like eating pussy…


Leave a Comment