Tax bill

[CRedskinsRule]

I think a lot of the opponents of this are arguing semantics. 80% of the public will see positive numbers from this for the next 7 years. That seems like a good thing.

Further, I doubt that the 20% that see "pain" will see overarching NEW federal tax burdens killing them.

• it's funny to me that the ones who may see the most pain are the ones who have the highest state taxes, simple solution, vote in local legislatures that will reduce state outlays - I'm looking at you CA and NY)
• also funny, the high tax states like NY, NJ, CA, DC, OR, or CT, how many voted for Trump or Republicans? Is it really THAT shocking that they see the least benefit or are going to receive the least consideration.
• Here is a map of the senate election results - geography quiz - how many republican senators were elected from NY, NJ, CA, DC, OR, or CT?
  
• geography quiz #2 - how many high tax states have a plurality of Republicans in Congress? again, here is a map of the House votes by party holding plurality in each state to help you out
  

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I think a lot of the opponents of this are arguing semantics. 80% of the public will see positive numbers from this for the next 7 years. That seems like a good thing.

Further, I doubt that the 20% that see "pain" will see overarching NEW federal tax burdens killing them.

• it's funny to me that the ones who may see the most pain are the ones who have the highest state taxes, simple solution, vote in local legislatures that will reduce state outlays - I'm looking at you CA and NY)
• also funny, the high tax states like NY, NJ, CA, DC, OR, or CT, how many voted for Trump or Republicans? Is it really THAT shocking that they see the least benefit or are going to receive the least consideration.
• Here is a map of the senate election results - geography quiz - how many republican senators were elected from NY, NJ, CA, DC, OR, or CT?
  
• geography quiz #2 - how many high tax states have a plurality of Republicans in Congress? again, here is a map of the House votes by party holding plurality in each state to help you out
  

To the bold section. I think that was designed to directly target high state taxes by removing the federal deduction to fit congressional republican agendas. High state taxes allow states to provide essential services and rely less heavily on the federal government. Most federal money takers are low tax states. I think this causes a push towards less state reliance and decreased state taxes and will cause the states to rely more on federal funds to meet essential needs which is what congress wants imo.

To the italicized section. That was also a slight towards "blue states" Not having a voice since the republicans basically eliminated the democrats from the conversation. Is that because of an agenda to push those states into turmoil in order to gain political influence or partisan politics as usual?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

To the bold section. I think that was designed to directly target high state taxes by removing the federal deduction to fit congressional republican agendas. High state taxes allow states to provide essential services and rely less heavily on the federal government. Most federal money takers are low tax states. I think this causes a push towards less state reliance and decreased state taxes and will cause the states to rely more on federal funds to meet essential needs which is what congress wants imo.

To the italicized section. That was also a slight towards "blue states" Not having a voice since the republicans basically eliminated the democrats from the conversation. Is that because of an agenda to push those states into turmoil in order to gain political influence or partisan politics as usual?

to the first bolded part, that's an interesting take - you think Republicans want to push states to rely on more federal spending by reducing the power of state exemptions to federal tax.

on the second bolded part: Blue states are going to use attacks on Trump to gain more local power so I doubt Republicans are trying to push those states into turmoil (personal bias belief: most Blue states already are in some turmoil from years of Democratic agendas being implemented and failing). I think it's more likely a nod from Republicans that Democratic voters in those states are not going to switch, so why try to appease them when the base that has won the Republicans both state and federal elections can be strengthened by reducing things like State and Local deductions.