I predict they stay the same or raise them to offset the reduced federal spending. The changes will actually be a tax reduction on the bottom 2/3 anyway since they the standard deduction increase will offset the loss of the deduction. And blue states don’t worry about over taxing the rich.

Since the states are no longer incentivized toward one type of taxation or another, any increases might be in areas that people normally didn’t deduct anyway.

Good points, and makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

But aren't the high income tax states going to be de-incentivized to maintain the high income taxes? It's a classic economics case. The states decisions to increase income taxes where being subsidized (in part) by Uncle Sam. That will no longer be the case. The richest 1/3 in these states don't have anyone in State Congress they can talk to?

Sure, which is why I said they would raise revenue through other means than income taxes. But in blue states the rich get less say and some of the rich are even happy to pay more. Those that don't like it move to Texas.

In actuality, total tax burden per capita doesn't very too much state to state with red states averaging about 8.5% and blue around 10%. But red states usually have lower income per capital and spread the burden around while blue states screw the rich.

But the bottom line is blue states tend toward Keynesian policies and don't see times of expansion as oppertunties to cut taxes but instead set money aside for "rainy day funds" that are used in downturns to fund infrastructure projects. Or that is the theory they use to sell the voters higher taxes to go to a general fund.

My tax burden in Mass is lower than it was in California even though I made 50% more when I moved.

And you should see how cheap it is to plate and insure my cars compared to in Washtenaw county ;)

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Yeah, it might be a sales job. The blue states generally set aside less money (as a % of total expenditures) than the red states -- at least that's what 2017 looks like.

The likelihood of blue states going supply-side (a la Kansas) is about the same as some folks re-evaluating the belief that all the wealthy folks are picking up stakes. In other words, extremely low. Outside of California, states will possibly transition to property taxes (away from state taxes). People who are in the most economically vital areas do so because economic opportunity is higher, in spite of taxation.

Several of them have unsustainable levels of public pension obligations and didn't put aside near enough money in fat times to cover future outlays, whether they couldn't by law or through just poor planning. California's CalPers and Illinois' pension system come immediately to mind. I think a lot of states, blue and red, made wildly optimistic assumptions about public pension plans' return on investment for some time. Now it's come back to bite them.

I think if you take California's -- and other states' -- cost of living, even in in-state boom economic times, such as you see in California, it's become more difficult to live in in them. With COL factored in in California, it drops them from 6th-largest economy in the world to 12th.

This is not a slam on those states -- because people are always free to move elsewhere if the primary concern is something like a high in-state tax burden (I know I would). I just think a lot of bad planning and a hesitance to be engage in good fiscal management is going to multiply the intensity of the loss of certain federal tax deductions for those below the "rich rich" level, who either don't want or need their taxes lowered or who support and can fund higher taxes on their income.

Like you say, though: most states will probably pull that "hike all the fees and don't refer to them as taxes" gag. Hopefully, they're targeted intelligently when they are eventually raised. What are the chances of that happening, you think? ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Die-hard defender of the Blue Model to the end. ;-)

That's okay, because I've lived in and owned homes in California. Hell of a state from a natural beauty standpoint. Run by a succession of fools and con men, from both parties, for decades, though.

Hopefully, it can also arrest its descent into Third World-ism, what with the huge numbers of homeless and the big hepatitis A outbreak going on down in San Diego.

San Diego opens giant tent to contain hepatitis outbreak - ABC News

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

I would think the liberals or at least the ones who want to soak the rich will be ok with this. It doesn't affect anyone who pays less than 10k in local taxes, right?

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

So you want the blue states to be more dependent of getting money from the government?

Maybe the blue states should start paying their own way. Just look at Alabama, what a joke.

Here you have data confirming that you want blue states to be as bad as red states.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

Fixed it! Especially with the new tax plan....

This. It's fine to have a right vs. left discussion. However, this one has been going on for decades, and it has become a right vs. reality issue. Could BK (or someone else) please honestly come to terms with the failure of the "blue state demise" talking point and explain why that hasn't happened. Please, not just another "kicking the can down the road" argument, since the feds are kicking the can MUCH further than any state while spending more money propping up many red states.

I don't see any reason for state taxes to be a national deduction. In fact some of the reason those state taxes passed was because of the national deduction. Why wouldn't those states want to pay your fair share?

Look up "double taxation." There is a grand and glorious history of conservatives here in the LR arguing against the evils of it. Also, look up "states' rights". The deduction allowed states/localities greater flexibility in becoming shiny "laboratories of democracy" while simultaneously diminishing the fed's reach. States were also less capable of running multi-trillion dollar ongoing debts (though some certainly have tried ;).... At this point conservatives are gladly handing greater power to the central government in a large number of areas. This is potentially a Faustian deal if (when) the party in power flips (or even if it stays the same).

Party before country. Your politicians prove it over and over again.

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

Sigh, fixed it.

Each state is in control of their own taxes. Why shouldn't everyone have to pay their fair share to the Feds?

Yeah 'Taxachusetts' isn't totally accurate these days. It's still a fairly high-tax state, among the top 15 or so overall, but it's not as bad as it had been historically.
https://www.investopedia.com/...tax-burden-state.asp

5.25% on income (mid-pack), 6.25% on sales (right around top-10), and property taxes are mid-pack.

It obviously looks bad with NH right there, 0% income and sales and it's why you have so many people hovering between the border around Nashua, but MA isn't as high-tax as people think. At this point it's just a high cost of living state more than anything and even then, you have to be inside Worchester for that to be a reality, most of the state is pretty reasonable imo.

Look up "double taxation", that used to be defined as "not fair" (it conveniently still is if one switches to discussion about estate taxes). States aren't people. Individuals who pay very large amounts in total taxes used to be paying more than their "fair share" (whatever that is). Never mind the budget or advocating for greater state vs. federal power. You are shredding conservative ideology on almost every front, except for corporate taxes.

Dude, pay attention,,,,, libs are always looking for opm, to subsidize their lifestyle and charities.

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

Plus, MA is routinely ranked the best state to live in -- mostly because of education, jobs, and health care.