[SeekAndFind]

Here’s a roundup of a few of the suggestions that have attracted attention:

• Racing the clock: Prepaying taxes that would otherwise have been due in 2018 was a popular scheme that emerged, and was endorsed by state, county and municipal officials from New York and New Jersey to Illinois to California, only to evolve out of existence when the tax overhaul took effect on New Year’s Day. (It’s worth noting that some early versions of the Republican overhaul favored property taxes within the state and local framework, leading some analysts to propose states shift to collecting property taxes in lieu of local income taxes.)

• State-run charity: The new law puts a cap on state and local income-tax deductions — but not charitable donations. If states set up charities to fund programs, taxpayers could donate money to those charities. They could then receive tax credits applicable to their state tax levy, while still taking advantage of the federal tax benefit.

• Payroll-tax shift: Alternately, states could make employers, not employees, responsible for remitting taxes on income. Currently, employees pay taxes on their earned income. States could set higher payroll taxes to replace that. Businesses would pay the full amount owed — and reduce employee wages by that amount. That would simplify the filing of personal taxes and provide corporations a tax benefit, since those taxes are still deductible for businesses.

It’s only fair to note that many conservatives say high-tax states should do more in their own backyards to get residents’ tax burdens down. But New Jersey’s Leonard Lance was particularly vocal among blue-state Republican House members in arguing that state and local taxes should have remained fully deductible, noting that reducing that deductibility meant the tax overhaul was picking winner and loser states, curtailing federalism by interfering in local decisions about levels of public-service provision, and effectively double taxing residents’ income.

Many Americans have made life plans based on the ability to deduct those taxes, a feature of the tax code for over a century.

Still, it’s not just the aggrieved elected officials in higher-tax states railing against the law. There are serious legal minds calling into question the legality of the distribution of the pain from this overhaul, possibly providing ammunition for court challenges, if those states should choose to file suit.

[NTHockey]

Why not file suit? That’s all the blue states have done since Election Day.

[Mariner]

In the states of CA, NY, NJ and IL there are 34 House Republicans. The vast majority of them voted for the tax bill.

How many will survive the 2018 election?

[11th_VA]

State-run charity: The new law puts a cap on state and local income-tax deductions — but not charitable donations. If states set up charities to fund programs, taxpayers could donate money to those charities. They could then receive tax credits applicable to their state tax levy, while still taking advantage of the federal tax benefit.

Can't wait til they do that and SCOTUS calls it a TAX anyway ...

[jiggyboy]

That “state-run charity” looks more like state-run tax fraud to me. If you’re getting a dollar for dollar “tax credit” for a “donation”, that’s not at all a donation in the traditional and legal sense

[Buckeye McFrog]

State-run charities? Letting some slimy Democrap Governator compete with the Salvation Army and Little Sisters of the Poor for charity dollars??

[faithhopecharity]

The state as “charity” idea is a total waste of time. It will generate zero tax advantage the moment the “donor” receives the intended quid quo pro of a reduction in his state tax obligation. This is longstanding tax law.

[PapaBear3625]

If states set up charities to fund programs, taxpayers could donate money to those charities. They could then receive tax credits applicable to their state tax levy, while still taking advantage of the federal tax benefit.

That would be thoroughly illegal. IRS publication Charitable Contributions - Quid Pro Quo Contributions states that if you get ANYTHING of value in return for a "charitable" contribution, then you must subtract the value of what you got.

[gunsequalfreedom]

But New Jersey’s Leonard Lance was particularly vocal among blue-state Republican House members in arguing that state and local taxes should have remained fully deductible, noting that reducing that deductibility meant the tax overhaul was picking winner and loser states, curtailing federalism by interfering in local decisions...

Now there is some convoluted thinking. More correct, the FEDs are making tax policy independent of the States. To adjust the Fed tax plan to what States are doing is exactly what Leonard Lance is complaining about.

[JimRed]

But New Jersey’s Leonard Lance was particularly vocal among blue-state Republican House members in arguing that state and local taxes should have remained fully deductible, noting that reducing that deductibility meant the tax overhaul was picking winner and loser states, curtailing federalism by interfering in local decisions about levels of public-service provision, and effectively double taxing residents’ income.

Translation: Big spender states and municipalities should be subsidized by the frugal low-spending states and municipalities. Hey, you make your choices, and you PAY for your choices! I do not want to pay for your choices!

[Honest Nigerian]

The old law “favored” one group. The new law “favors” a different group.
And someone says this is “unconstitutional”? How?

This stuff happens far too often. It is a quirk of politics and the legislative process.