117th Congress: DEMS IN DISARRAY!!!111!!

[psych]

It is likely tossed in to try to get some of the "lean blue but not always" voters in blue states that got ****ed by the elimination as part of Trump's tax cut. Too little, too late. Even though for almost 20 years I've happily taken advantage of the mortgage interest deduction, I would support its tapered and phased elimination.

New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, those people are voting blue for president and Senators 99% of the time, as you’re obviously aware. Massachusetts is what, 9-0 in the House for Democrats? New York, when it’s done gerrymandering, will have maybe 3-5 Republicans representing districts there? The people who benefit from SALT repeal the most live in states so blue, there’s no need for an “easy political win.” I understand Josh Gottheimer thinks he needs it to win re-election next year. I understand Schumer and Pelosi and others living in high-tax states want to keep their constituents happy, lest someone like Schumer face a tough primary next go ‘round. I understand it needing to be apart of the BBB to get the votes necessary to pass all of it, since it’s certainly better millionaires and billionaires get their tax cut as long as the rest of us get free preschool, etc., than the current status quo. But it’s not an easy political win for the party. It’s a slap in the face of our platform as a party. I’m sure you understand all of that too.

[Swansong]

I definitely understand it. It was a rare brilliant strategic move by the TA.

But in the interest of fixing something that was put in purely through bad intentions as well as maybe shoring up a few votes, it isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things.


Full disclosure - I'm not against the SALT Cap personally and I generally don't go to bat for the sake of the income of high income earners.

[dxmnkd316]

New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, those people are voting blue for president and Senators 99% of the time, as you’re obviously aware. Massachusetts is what, 9-0 in the House for Democrats? New York, when it’s done gerrymandering, will have maybe 3-5 Republicans representing districts there? The people who benefit from SALT repeal the most live in states so blue, there’s no need for an “easy political win.” I understand Josh Gottheimer thinks he needs it to win re-election next year. I understand Schumer and Pelosi and others living in high-tax states want to keep their constituents happy, lest someone like Schumer face a tough primary next go ‘round. I understand it needing to be apart of the BBB to get the votes necessary to pass all of it, since it’s certainly better millionaires and billionaires get their tax cut as long as the rest of us get free preschool, etc., than the current status quo. But it’s not an easy political win for the party. It’s a slap in the face of our platform as a party. I’m sure you understand all of that too.

It’s not a slap in the face. It’s doing what you need to win. If it gets you two or three more house seats, that might be the difference. Is that not worth it?

[ScoobyDoo]

SALT Cap is fine. That's not the problem with the tax code. By a long shot. Either way the Bernie Bros are overreaching over and over again. Bernie lost. Progressives lost. Biden won. Just get what you can out of Manchin and be done with it.

Manchin is right. Southwest Virginia which voted for Youngkin 80-20 is his entire state. They're all stupid and will always vote against their best interests. You will never convince them otherwise. We have a Manchin Administration right now. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

I may be confused on salt cap. I make under 175 and still hit the cap with Minnesota taxes. Do I need tax relief? No. Should I pay less on taxes than people who make over 400k? I think so for sure. I don’t know if this would even help me

[unofan]

I may be confused on salt cap. I make under 175 and still hit the cap with Minnesota taxes. Do I need tax relief? No. Should I pay less on taxes than people who make over 400k? I think so for sure. I don’t know if this would even help me

If you hit the SALT cap and itemize your deductions (or would itemize but for the cap), then yes, its removal would help you. It just won't help you as much as a billionaire.

[Handyman]

It?s not a slap in the face. It?s doing what you need to win. If it gets you two or three more house seats, that might be the difference. Is that not worth it?

And right now that needs to be the goal. The Dems need wins if they want any chance next year and in '24. Win the easy ones and then go from there.

Its like playing the Lions...the win is never very impressive but sometimes it helps end a losing streak which can turn things around.

[French Rage]

If you hit the SALT cap and itemize your deductions (or would itemize but for the cap), then yes, its removal would help you. It just won't help you as much as a billionaire.

My attitude is that is double taxation, so remove it; up the bracket amounts by all means if you want; just have it make sense, which it does not with the SALT cap.

Note: removing it would massively help me given both state incomes taxes and (now that I bought a Bay Area home) property taxes. So my justification is self-serving.

[dxmnkd316]

If you hit the SALT cap and itemize your deductions (or would itemize but for the cap), then yes, its removal would help you. It just won't help you as much as a billionaire.

Which is why I think you're right about a minor win for raising the cap. I make less than DGF and I hit it or came close the last few years. It also promotes irresponsible taxation at the state and local levels. You want your states to be properly funded so it doesn't become a race to the bottom. If you cap it, there's less incentive for the states to tax appropriately for their infrastructure and services.

My attitude is that is double taxation, so remove it; up the bracket amounts by all means if you want; just have it make sense, which it does not with the SALT cap.

Note: removing it would massively help me given both state incomes taxes and (now that I bought a Bay Area home) property taxes. So my justification is self-serving.

Agreed. If the state taxed you at 100%, hypothetically, how do you sort that out? Obviously someone gets first dibs, probably the feds, but I don't know. Either way, you still are taxing money that doesn't exist. It's the state's or fed's. The other can't come in and claim it as well.

[psych]

I definitely understand it. It was a rare brilliant strategic move by the TA.

But in the interest of fixing something that was put in purely through bad intentions as well as maybe shoring up a few votes, it isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things.


Full disclosure - I'm not against the SALT Cap personally and I generally don't go to bat for the sake of the income of high income earners.

Bad intentions or not, it was good policy. I don’t think it’ll have any effect on shoring up seats. The only thing it’s knowingly, tangibly good for in this moment is securing the votes of Gottheimer, Suozzi, etc., on the twin bills in Congress, and YES- ****ING YES- it’s worth sticking in there for that alone. SALT repeal can be worth it for THAT, and STILL be sh-tty policy at the same time. It’s a massive ****ing tax giveaway to the rich, and a cursory glance of the research refutes every argument made on here, like “double taxation”, a “race to the bottom”, etc. Actual, real, middle-class families, who are represented by basically none of you on here, don’t benefit one iota. Under 3% receive anything from SALT repeal, and a family that does receives around $37.
I guess I’m a little shocked that in the 30 minutes of reading I’ve done on the topic, everything on this board in favor of repeal, or justifying as a somehow inherent “win”, can be so easily refuted. I’ll stand by my slap in the face to our party’s platform, despite the gains, and, in the case of retaining a House seat or two, potential gains.

[unofan]

Bad intentions or not, it was good policy. I don’t think it’ll have any effect on shoring up seats. The only thing it’s knowingly, tangibly good for in this moment is securing the votes of Gottheimer, Suozzi, etc., on the twin bills in Congress, and YES- ****ING YES- it’s worth sticking in there for that alone. SALT repeal can be worth it for THAT, and STILL be sh-tty policy at the same time. It’s a massive ****ing tax giveaway to the rich, and a cursory glance of the research refutes every argument made on here, like “double taxation”, a “race to the bottom”, etc. Actual, real, middle-class families, who are represented by basically none of you on here, don’t benefit one iota. Under 3% receive anything from SALT repeal, and a family that does receives around $37.
I guess I’m a little shocked that in the 30 minutes of reading I’ve done on the topic, everything on this board in favor of repeal, or justifying as a somehow inherent “win”, can be so easily refuted. I’ll stand by my slap in the face to our party’s platform, despite the gains, and, in the case of retaining a House seat or two, potential gains.

Do you know how Steve King kept his seat relatively easily for so long despite literally never getting a single bill out of committee, let alone passed, and being a national embarrassment? Constituent service. He did the little things to take care of his district. He only got kicked out because the embarrassment finally prevented him from helping his district because he got kicked off his committees.

Do you know how Tom Miller has become the longest serving AG in the country despite having a D after his name in an ever increasingly red Iowa? Constituent service. He's made consumer protection his primary focus for 40 years, which is a smart call in a state with a lot of old farmers in it. And he's popular enough that the Rs either let him run unopposed or put up token resistance mainly to give some young politician experience in a statewide campaign (with the promise they'll get taken care of post- election).

You tell people "We repealed Trump's blatant attack on you and our state" because it's another notch in that constituent service belt. The policy itself doesn't matter, the overall impact of the decision doesn't matter, it's the fact that you can show voters you're helping and protecting them. And in the case of the SALT cap, you get the double benefit of being able to attack the other side for screwing them in the first place. Note, it's not Republicans arguing that the repeal of a policy they enacted is bad, it's the progressive think tanks wondering why no one ever listens to them. Because Republicans understand politics and don't want to call attention to it, while think tanks believe right makes might instead of the other way around.

[Drew S.]

I may be confused on salt cap. I make under 175 and still hit the cap with Minnesota taxes. Do I need tax relief? No. Should I pay less on taxes than people who make over 400k? I think so for sure. I don’t know if this would even help me

I think it definitely would help you. It helps my wife and I but the way I look at it is giving us some money back worth increasing the debt? I don’t think it is and the vast majority of the money will go to people far wealthier than us. It certainly increases wealth inequality which is the last thing we should be doing.

[psych]

Do you know how Steve King kept his seat relatively easily for so long despite literally never getting a single bill out of committee, let alone passed, and being a national embarrassment? Constituent service. He did the little things to take care of his district. He only got kicked out because the embarrassment finally prevented him from helping his district because he got kicked off his committees.

Do you know how Tom Miller has become the longest serving AG in the country despite having a D after his name in an ever increasingly red Iowa? Constituent service. He's made consumer protection his primary focus for 40 years, which is a smart call in a state with a lot of old farmers in it. And he's popular enough that the Rs either let him run unopposed or put up token resistance mainly to give some young politician experience in a statewide campaign (with the promise they'll get taken care of post- election).

You tell people "We repealed Trump's blatant attack on you and our state" because it's another notch in that constituent service belt. The policy itself doesn't matter, the overall impact of the decision doesn't matter, it's the fact that you can show voters you're helping and protecting them. And in the case of the SALT cap, you get the double benefit of being able to attack the other side for screwing them in the first place. Note, it's not Republicans arguing that the repeal of a policy they enacted is bad, it's the progressive think tanks wondering why no one ever listens to them. Because Republicans understand politics and don't want to call attention to it, while think tanks believe right makes might instead of the other way around.

You know Iowa better than me, so I’ll bow to your knowledge on that. That said, I think the vast majority of Americans don’t know how effective their lawmakers actually are in providing constituent services, and therefore, don’t vote based on that. The vast, vast majority of voters aren’t even affected by the SALT repeal/reform, so, I’m not sure of the effectiveness of such a message. I think Republicans’ message of “Tax breaks for billionaires, not for you” will resonate more with middle-class voters than “We’re getting Trump back for you”, considering tying Trump to Youngkin, Ciattarelli, etc., just proved to be a big loser a few days ago. You’re right that Republicans don’t give a **** about being right, and they understand politics, so the hypocrisy of “Tax breaks for billionaires, not for you” will roll off their backs like their entire platform never happened. And, as a handful of nights ago showed, people aren’t voting with Trump and his policies at the top of their minds.

[dxmnkd316]

You know Iowa better than me, so I’ll bow to your knowledge on that. That said, I think the vast majority of Americans don’t know how effective their lawmakers actually are in providing constituent services, and therefore, don’t vote based on that. The vast, vast majority of voters aren’t even affected by the SALT repeal/reform, so, I’m not sure of the effectiveness of such a message. I think Republicans’ message of “Tax breaks for billionaires, not for you” will resonate more with middle-class voters than “We’re getting Trump back for you”, considering tying Trump to Youngkin, Ciattarelli, etc., just proved to be a big loser a few days ago. You’re right that Republicans don’t give a **** about being right, and they understand politics, so the hypocrisy of “Tax breaks for billionaires, not for you” will roll off their backs like their entire platform never happened. And, as a handful of nights ago showed, people aren’t voting with Trump and his policies at the top of their minds.

No, it won't help the vast vast majority. But it will help in the suburbs which are currently the front lines.

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

House passes the big bill. Biden calls out how hard VP worked to get this done. I’m sure our resident misogynist will be along to tell us differently

Maureen dowd continues to have the worst takes and should be sent to the glue factory