The second-biggest program in the Democrats' spending plan gives billions to the rich.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

The House is expected to vote this week on President Joe Biden's Build Back Better legislation. The social spending bill includes investments in clean energy and affordable child care - but it also includes a $285 billion tax cut that would almost exclusively benefit high-income households over the next five years.

The measure would allow households to increase their deduction from state and local taxes from $10,000 to $80,000 through 2026, and then impose a new deduction cap through 2031. It's the second-most expensive item in the legislation over the next five years, more costly than establishing a paid family and medical leave program, and nearly twice as expensive as funding home-medical services for the elderly and disabled, according to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

...

Proponents of the SALT cap provision in the Build Back Better Act argue that, over 10 years, the SALT provision would actually raise revenue. That's because the new, higher cap would last for nine years and then drop to $10,000 in 2031, while the current $10,000 cap is set to expire in 2025. The maneuver pays for four years of tax cuts by adding six years of higher taxes later.

[The Magistrate]

1. This Is Awfully Tiresome, Sir

The deduction for state and local taxes was removed by Republican strategists in hopes of provoking resistance to state and local taxes, which are higher in 'blue' states because these provide decent services and governance, as opposed to the sort of indifference displayed by places like Mississippi and Alabama.

It is best by far to balk this before it's had a chance to achieve its objective.

[lagomorph777]

2. Bullshit. Restoring SALT fairness is not just for the rich.

It's for all the people in non 3rd-world states, who are currently being double-taxed.

Also, my understanding is that the current cap on SALT is $0. This is why Trump's billionaire tax cut is actually a tax hike for millions of middle-class Americans.

I'm curious what source you quoted with such a RW-skewed description of the Trump Tax Hike and Biden's correction of it.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

5. Since you asked, I got it from the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/11/16/second-biggest-program-democrats-budget-gives-billions-rich/

[lagomorph777]

7. Well, it's a RW twist on reality. WP should be ashamed.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

11. What part?

Second biggest cost in the bill or Taxpayers in the bottom 40% by income do not receive any benefit, an the next 20% get 20$?
60-80% get 90$ benefit.
80-90% get 420$.

1% >$15,000

[lagomorph777]

12. Their chart is not truthful.

I lost more than they show, and I make less than they claim for that amount of loss.

Something is fishy.

[Hortensis]

8. So? Misleading spin in a headline doesn't somehow become a complete

picture with WaPo at the top of the page.

The headline should clue anyone. Most elected Democrats believe we have an existential need to tax billionaires until they're cut down at least to millionaires, out of existence and consigned to history for at least half, whether they choose to stand in lightning storms by saying so or not.

That's the big reason for deceitful insinuations like this one. WE aren't their friends.

[unblock]

3. note that this is merely (partially) undoing something donnie did.

it's not like this is a new spending plan, democrats are merely partially restoring how things were and had been for decades.

donnie upset the apple cart not out of any great policy notion, but simply as a "f*ck you" to blue states, as this provision is heavily concentrated in blue states with high state and local taxes. that's a very dumb thing to base public policy on.

plus, while the rich do benefit, many homeowners benefit without being rich at all. yes, doing well enough to afford a house, but not necessarily "rich" by any stretch.

[empedocles]

9. TY

[uponit7771]

14. +1,

[mathematic]

4. LOL at all the rich DUers saying "no, I didn't mean raise MY taxes"

You get to sell your home for a million bucks and retire to some beach somewhere, while people who live where property values aren't high enough to take advantage of the SALT deductions get to sell their house and retire to a shack on a West Virginia mountainside if they want to actually live on some of that home equity in retirement.

[lagomorph777]

6. LOL at all the DUers who think that this was a deduction for the rich.

Trump took it away as a punishment to people in blue states, who pay high taxes and subsidize red states.

[unblock]

13. I've had my home for 14 years. It won't sell close to a million, and it will be at a loss.

Most of it will go to pay off my mortgage and heloc. I also lose 6% in commissions and 2% in a Connecticut tax on home sales.

What's left probably won't even be my original down payment. It sure as hell won't cover the cost of improvements over the years to say nothing of repairs.


A lot of real estate is just a crap shoot as to how much more or less your neighborhood will be valued decades later.

But in the meanwhile, I have to pay taxes. Now, I'm not close to "rich", but I am comfortable enough that I can take a hit and still be ok. But it makes no real sense for that hit to be highly concentrated amount middle-class to low upper-class homeowners in mostly ny, nj, ct, and ca.

If raising taxes on people who were well off was the goal, they should just raise rates. Or end favorable treatment if capital gains and dividends. I'm totally on board with that even if it costs me more personally.

But Donnie's petulant stunt with salt deductions is not the way to do it.

[emulatorloo]

17. Let's work on determining legit sources. A couple of graphics people from WAPO quoting rightwing

think tanks don’t seem very credible.

[ColinC]

10. Your quoted textappears to be from numbers presented by two right wing groups

Last edited Wed Nov 17, 2021, 08:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Cfrb and tax policy. This entire article is a right wing spin piece.

Correction tot his and my other post: tax policy center is part of the Brookings institute. I don't know about cfrb tho

[emulatorloo]

16. To me it is Interesting the article is written by graphics people @ WAPO rather than financial

Reporters or analysts.

Author bios from the OP’s orig link:

‘ Alyssa Fowers is a graphics reporter for The Washington Post.



Simon Ducroquet is a graphics assignment editor for The Washington Post. Before joining the Post, Simon worked on the graphics desk for O Globo (Brazil), Folha de S.Paulo (Brazil) and Nexo Jornal (Brazil).
‘

I am a graphics person btw.

[emulatorloo]

15. So an article written by 2 WAPO graphics people, with quotes from right-wing think tanks

Deserves promotion on DU?

Hmm. i seriously doubt it.

‘Alyssa Fowers is a graphics reporter for The Washington Post.



Simon Ducroquet is a graphics assignment editor for The Washington Post. Before joining the Post, Simon worked on the graphics desk for O Globo (Brazil), Folha de S.Paulo (Brazil) and Nexo Jornal (Brazil).
‘

🤔

I’m a graphics person btw