Wow, if I'm reading this correctly, the Big Beautiful Bill introduced a pretty large gap that punishes married couples filing jointly: a couple making about $300K each can lose up to $15K in write-offs compared with filing separately, pretty much everywhere except the nine states with no broad income tax (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming), where few couples pay the $25K in state and local taxes needed to trigger it. I think most tax software will assume the $5K cap each, but the regulation here is inconsistent. Here’s the take-away quote from the article:

“A married couple can deduct more state and local tax by filing separately. The deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) is capped, and the cap shrinks as income rises: by 30 cents for each dollar over $500,000 on a joint return. On a separate return, the law halves the cap after shrinking it, so it shrinks by only 15 cents a dollar. A couple earning $300,000 each can deduct up to $25,000 on two separate returns, but only $10,000 on one joint return.”

This is non-trivial impact to joint returns if this is true, and I won’t be surprised if there are multiple appeals for refunds and more people filling separately going towards.

▲

jghn 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> punishes married couples filing jointly: a couple making about $300K each

The number of married couples where each partner is making $300K each is a very, very small percentage of the population. Not sure this is a big deal to be concerned about in the grand scheme of things. For instance, only a few %age of households have an income over 300K in the first place, much less coming from 2 earners of that amount.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

jedberg 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It might be a few people nationwide, but it's a whole lot of families in the Bay Area, New York, Los Angeles, and a few other major cities.

The law was specifically designed to punish these people. Remember, at first they wanted to drop the SALT deduction completely to punish blue states.

Edit: It seems that people are assuming I'm against removing the SALT deduction. Far from it. I am glad they got it done despite being a political third rail for a long time. And despite being a huge beneficiary of the SALT deductions myself.

I don't think people choosing to live in high tax states should get to save on their federal income taxes.

▲

contubernio 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Those people should be taxed a lot.

▲

airstrike an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Why? You're not adjusting for cost of living.

A family making $300k in Manhattan should not be taxed a lot, unless you think a family making ~$115k in Montgomery, Alabama should also be taxed a lot.

Policy is best written by the informed rather than the emotional.

	▲	selectodude 30 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This is about a family earning $600,000/yr.
	▲	InsidiousWombat 30 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Maybe read correctly before you start complaining. It was 300k EACH, so 600k

▲

bahmboo an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, you should be taxed a lot. [edit: you just said "those people should be taxed a lot" with no reason and then people get sad when the same is said to them]

▲

jedberg 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree. I never said they shouldn't.

▲

Auracle 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Don’t tax the rich (and yes, 600k for a couple per year is absolutely rich territory)? “They need to pay their fair share!” Tax the rich? “They’re targeting people in blue cities!”

The SALT deduction is nonsense. Why should high tax states effectively be able to take money from the federal government?

	▲	jedberg 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's funny that me pointing out the fact removing the SALT deduction was meant to punish rich people makes people think I don't like it. In fact, I was glad they got it done. The Dems didn't object very hard because they knew it had to go too. It's interesting that they didn't put it back when they had the chance. I don't think the federal government should lose money when people choose to live in high tax states. And I pay high taxes in a high tax state.

▲

airstrike an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Making $300k _where_, though?

$300k in NYC is $115k in Alabama.

https://imgur.com/a/1rInLQB

	▲	InsidiousWombat 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's 600k. 300k each

▲

rexpop 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But isn't that an undue burden on "job creators" with proportionately far-reaching downstream economic consequences?

	▲	nyargh 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		/s

▲

AnthonyMouse 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The tax code has significantly punished dual-income married couples for quite a while. It presumably started some time in the 20th century as some sexists not wanting women in the workplace and then continued because changing it to have them pay the same taxes as they would if they were unmarried would result in a significant reduction in government revenue.

▲

derwiki 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Thank you for posting this!