Democratic attorneys general file one of the stupidest lawsuits of the Trump era

[phands]

I'm so NOT conservative, but I have to say this piece of nonsense from Dems makes me worry about their ability to beat the rethuglicans....

So here’s a story you’ve probably heard before. Congress enacted a policy that, if allowed to take effect, will cost some rich people a bunch of money. In response, a partisan group of state attorneys general file a lawsuit, rooted in an absurdist understanding of states’ rights, that seeks to reverse this policy. If the lawsuit is successful, it could do permanent harm to Congress’ power to enact progressive policies and potentially help to usher in a golden age of conservative judicial activism.
But this time, the story comes with an M. Night Shyamalan-like twist. The attorneys general behind this suit are Democrats! From solid blue states!
And so we get New York v. Mnuchin, an attack on the federal government’s power to set its own tax policy that is so aggressive, and so hard to square with a century of established law, that it would make Neil Gorsuch blush.
The best case scenario in the New York lawsuit is that the four attorneys general behind this suit are ridiculed out of court and sent back to their states with their tails between their legs. The worst case scenario is that they actually prevail and send America’s tax policy into chaos.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Facts on the SALT Deduction

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't think anyone should be taxed more than once on the same removed taxable income between govt 1 and govt 2. I don't know the term for it which is why I have highlighted the word "removed" in italics. If govt 1 taxes you p% first and govt 2 taxes you q% second on the same original taxable income then there will be some overlap between the two that is removed as a tax by the first but then is taxed by the second. For small rates (p and q) it hardly matters but when the rates are high it becomes a problem for the individual being taxed. For instance if federal rate were 50%, state were 25% and local were 25%, all may seem somewhat fair independently, but you'd be left with no income. I don't care whether state tax is deducted from taxable income before federal rate or if the opposite: federal is deducted from taxable income before state is applied. Overall, I don't think it's fair to treat these things as if they are all independent and legislation (or the law) ought to look at the whole of it, most likely by deducting one from the other, but some other methods might also be fair.

 

[dismal]

I don't think anyone should be taxed more than once on the same removed taxable income between govt 1 and govt 2. I don't know the term for it which is why I have highlighted the word "removed" in italics. If govt 1 taxes you p% first and govt 2 taxes you q% second on the same original taxable income then there will be some overlap between the two that is removed as a tax by the first but then is taxed by the second. For small rates (p and q) it hardly matters but when the rates are high it becomes a problem for the individual being taxed. For instance if federal rate were 50%, state were 25% and local were 25%, all may seem somewhat fair independently, but you'd be left with no income. I don't care whether state tax is deducted from taxable income before federal rate or if the opposite: federal is deducted from taxable income before state is applied. Overall, I don't think it's fair to treat these things as if they are all independent and legislation (or the law) ought to look at the whole of it, most likely by deducting one from the other, but some other methods might also be fair.

What you think is good and what is Constitutional are not the same thing. There are all kinds of phaseouts of deductions at various income levels. I know of nothing in the Constitution that would prevent the Federal govt from administering the income tax this way.