The $10,000 cap on the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, enacted in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, has spent most of the last decade being attacked from the political left. Governors of high-tax states have called it punitive, partisan, and a deliberate strike at blue America. The funny thing is that, on the merits, it’s one of the more progressive provisions in a generally regressive tax law — and the loudest opponents of repealing it should, by their own stated principles, be its defenders.
Who actually loses when SALT is capped
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that more than 90% of the benefit of repealing the SALT cap would flow to households earning over $200,000 a year, with a substantial chunk going to those earning over $1 million. That’s because lower- and middle-income earners take the standard deduction, which the TCJA roughly doubled. They don’t itemize, so SALT is irrelevant to them. The only households for whom an uncapped SALT deduction matters are those with state-and-local tax bills above $10,000, which means high earners in places like New York, New Jersey, California, and Connecticut. A “tax cut for blue states” turns out to be, in practice, a tax cut for the top 5% of those states.
The federal subsidy nobody quite names
There’s a deeper issue under the surface. An uncapped SALT deduction effectively means that the federal government is subsidizing state and local tax decisions, with the size of the subsidy scaled to the taxpayer’s marginal rate. If a New Jersey hedge fund manager pays $80,000 in state and local taxes, an uncapped deduction lets them claw back roughly $30,000 of that from the federal treasury. A teacher in the same state, paying $4,000 in SALT and taking the standard deduction, gets nothing. In aggregate, this means lower-tax states subsidize the high-tax-state choices of wealthy residents in high-tax states. There may be reasonable arguments for that arrangement, but they should be made explicitly, not buried in a deduction.
The political asymmetry
The strange politics of SALT come from the geographic concentration of the affected voters. High-income earners in coastal blue states are disproportionately Democratic donors, media figures, and elected officials. Restoring the deduction is, for them, personally lucrative in a way that doesn’t quite line up with the party’s stated commitment to taxing the wealthy more aggressively. The cap, by contrast, was passed by a Republican Congress in part for political reasons. The honest framing is that both parties acted partly on tribal grounds, but the policy outcome — a more progressive tax structure — survived the politics.
What a serious reform would do
A defensible reform isn’t repeal; it’s a graduated cap that phases up modestly and phases out at very high incomes, or a full uncap paired with a millionaire surcharge that recaptures the windfall. Several proposals along those lines have been floated and have gone nowhere, because they don’t deliver the headline result the loudest critics actually want.
The takeaway
Calling the SALT cap regressive doesn’t make it so. The actual incidence is sharply progressive, and any honest tax-policy conversation should start there before moving on to the geography.
Leave a Reply