I'm a highish earning single homeowner in Alameda County (Bay Area) -- between the Mortgage Interest deduction, the Property Tax deduction, and the State Income Tax deduction being slated for removal, my taxable income is about to go up something like $60k, which is a large chunk of my actual income. This tax bill utterly fucks me, to the point I'm considering selling my house to get ahead of the inevitable housing crash.

I cannot see this bill as anything short of theft. Why do I have to pay double-digit percentage more on my taxes to give the ultra rich a tax cut? In what fucking world does that make any economic sense.

I don't see why state taxes should be federally deductible to begin with.

Two families both make $250,000 a year. One is in New York and one is in Texas. The family in Texas is carrying more of the federal tax burden than the family in New York. Why? Both are (in theory) receiving the same benefits from the Federal Government and should pay the same in taxes.

If you're a progressive this should make even less sense: rich states are currently keeping additional funds for themselves local, in their rich states, via high taxes, that are then shielded from the federal government via deductions.

First, this article would've been much better off using medians instead of means. High earner outliers tend to skew stats like these.

Second, it's interesting to see people who were in favor of tax increases suddenly change their mind when it hits them. While I agree that tax cuts for the rich seem unnecessary, some tax hikes for the upper middle-class aren't out of line compared with a Democrat led tax plan. I wonder how much our own personal interests in our money affects how we view tax plans? Most people, no matter how rich they are, seem to want those just richer than them to be taxed more.

Finally, although the removal of the SALT deduction will cost me significantly, I'm not sure I understand how the deduction makes sense. Why should a state raising their taxes mean you have less of a federal obligation? It only makes sense to me if states with higher taxes use less federal resources.

This doesn't really make sense to me. So it appears that the tax bill generally is reducing the tax code and closing loop-holes (which typically is considered "good" to the left, and the right).

In this case, it looks like the tax reductions are reduced in states that have higher taxes. Well that makes sense, because the states with lower taxes have less to write off (as they have 0% in some cases). Of course Texas would be impacted less, because they have no state income tax. New York and California have a state income tax, so the amount that loop holes help people in those states is much higher. So they effectively will be paying higher taxes. Complain to the state governments, who have crazy high taxes (part of the reason I left California)!

This article honestly just seems to be trying to draw a correlation where there really isn't one. They are simplifying the tax code, that means reductions go away. Perhaps, we should lower taxes? I'd be in favor of that, but I'm also in favor of making it simpler to do my taxes.

I have very mixed feelings about this part of the tax plan.

For years I've been concerned about the increasing geographic gap between rich and poor in America. All talent, capital, and entrepreneurship is increasingly concentrated in coastal cities. This is impoverishing the interior and at the same time driving real estate hyperinflation on the coasts.

The middle class and the young get caught in a vice here. You either live somewhere with affordable real estate but no career opportunities or you live somewhere where you can advance your career but can never afford a decent home and can never escape ever-increasing rent. Either way you are screwed. Rot in a backwater or spend everything on real estate and never accumulate savings.

I'm tempted to support anything with the potential to reverse this horrible trend.

At the same time I also see this as unfair. Coastal blue states already collectively pay more in taxes than they receive from the Fed.

I'm a bit torn on this. I'm also torn on the corporate income tax cut.

The rest of the tax bill seems mostly bad, so on balance I am not supporting it.

Overall this bill seems really, really bad and poorly implemented (and costly). But as a renter in the bay area, I do like that increasing the standard deduction and reducing some of the other popular deductions will decrease the large tax break homeowners have been receiving. In my opinion we have been treating renters unfairly by letting homeowners deduct so much mortgage interest, property taxes, etc. We already incentivize home ownership by offering government backed 30-year mortgages. We don't need to use the tax code as well.

If a person in TX or FL, where there in no income tax lives in a Mansion, they also will have increase in Tax, are they worst hit? no but, they did not have State tax deductions to begin with.

It could be argued, the rich people in blue states were paying less federal tax because of the SALT discounts, and now they have to pay the feds whole irrespective of the case at State.

Coastal liberals are very happy for tax increases except when they have to pay it themselves! This makes the situation more fair - eliminate market warping changes such as the property tax deduction and stop letting states get a free ride when increasing taxes by reducing the federal burden. Seems fair to me.

Florida here, I'm going be paying $4000 ish less in taxes. I hope the tax bill lands and is put to practice quick!

People who make over $200k aren't getting as big a tax break? I don't feel bad about that.

This seems win-win to me.

Techies and bankers pay more in taxes.

People in fly-over states get a small tax cut, and maybe can buy a few extra weeks' groceries for their kids.

So people making over 200K a year will pay more taxes, cry me a river.

Idk. I'm a high income tax payer in a blue state. According to my calculations, I'll be paying less taxes next year.

In fact, according to my calculations, almost every one will be paying less, except a miniscule population that will have their taxes raised by a couple of hundred per year. And even that might get legislated away in the conference.

This article is more descriptive, not mentioning why the bill is setup like this. But, it's worth saying that this is working as intended from a GOP perspective. This hits mostly democrats. And even if it didn't, high state taxes are seen as propping up big (state) government.

I love how the articles make it look like Democrats are more likely to be hit by higher taxes. Yes, those states where taxes are going up are majority democrat, but the split isn't that far off from 50/50. Plenty of wealthy Republicans will be paying more tax too.

The tax bill has multiple ploys, most central of which is a giant corporate tax reduction. (Note how that tax cut is permanent, while personal tax cuts are temporary.), along with long standing GOP wish list items like elimination of the estate tax and pass through income.

That said, there is also an animous towards the rich Democratic states, which this disproportionately hurts. The short game is to stick it to the libs. The long game is to try to eliminate state income taxes.

Here's a visualization of the changes with some settings.

https://jsfiddle.net/381rkrsq/

The AMT changes are a huge tax benefit, even to those in California. Especially if you're married

Just to be clear, the article is talking about HOUSEHOLDS making more than 200k, not individuals.

With a National average salary for software developers of $109k(per Glassdoor), a family of 2 tech professionals across the nation will see their tax liabilities significantly increase

Let's just hope this doesn't get flagged off the front page either. It needs to be talked about, as it directly affects most people's livelihoods.