# California proposal to allow its residents to avoid the $10,000 tax deduction limitation **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 7, 2018, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016 "2018-01-07T01:13:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/41 "2018-01-08T03:01:16Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Did you look at the VCF? One of the available charities is the CA Sea Otter Fund. The California Coastal Conservancy and the Department of Fish and Wildlife will each be allocated 50 percent of the contributions. Both of those are State of CA government departments. There is a 100% tax credit for those donations, and they are deductible at the federal level. The state benefits directly from this donation which directly contradicts your criteria. So again, how is this different? I guess part of the difference would be that you don’t get a CA state tax benefit if you contribute to a VCF. VCF contributions are above whatever your state liability is. So it’s still extra money going to the otters. This, on the other hand, is an obvious attempt to get around the SALT deduction limitation, and the otters get nothing. Nobody benefits here except for the California taxpayer, and the whole point of the SALT deduction limitation is to punish the California taxpayer for living in a high tax state controlled by Democrats. So it seems like a blatant way for California to try to get around that. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/42 "2018-01-08T03:01:54Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Obviously because it’s not real charitable payment, it’s a sham charitable payment. > > The state would not give the 100% tax credit unless all the money flowed right to the state rather than any other “charity”; and the taxpayer would not make the “charitable” donation unless he knew he was sure to get the 100% tax credit. That’s a straightforward 1-for-1 quid pro quo, it’s obvioualy a sham. The state can pass a law to call it a charitable donation under state law, but that doesn’t make it so under federal law, and federal law will govern whether it’s deductible for federal taxes. > . I get a tax credit for putting a solar roof on my house. That’s a 1 for 1 quid pro quo. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/43 "2018-01-08T03:03:24Z")
As a point of order, there’s a difference between a payment being allowed as a deductible under California taxes, and a payment being granted a tax credit. Let’s say, for the sake of simplifying the arithmetic, that California’s taxes are 50%. You make $100,000 dollars. You therefore owe the state of California $50,000 dollars. Now suppose that you earn $100,000 dollars, but then donate $50,000 to the charity of your choice. The amount of the donation is deducted from your income, before taxes are calculated, so now your taxable income is $50,000. So now the state takes $25,000, and you take home $25,000. But now suppose that California passes this plan. Now, you earn $100,000, and then donate $50,000 to the California Excellence Fund. The state of California doesn’t adjust your taxable income; instead, it adjusts the amount of taxes you need to pay. 50% of your income would be $50,000, but that’s offset by the $50,000 you paid to the California Excellence Fund, and so you don’t owe anything else, and thus take home $50,000. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/44 "2018-01-08T04:07:37Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I guess part of the difference would be that you don’t get a CA state tax benefit if you contribute to a VCF. I think you do get a CA state tax benefit. In the following year, contributions to a VCF are deductible on your federal schedule A. It’s not an add back for state tax purposes, so that results in a benefit since the CA return starts from the position of the federal return. There are other similar examples. The [College Access Tax Credit](https://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/College_Access_Tax_Credit.shtml) offers a similar structure - a credit in return for a contribution. This is not 1:1, but I don’t think the objection hinges on the ratio of credit. And just to clarify - I think this bill passing and the credit working the way it’s proposed is an unlikely outcome. There are many hurdles, least of which is actually passing the law, and having it executed. Then the court challenges, etc. But I don’t think it’s so far fetched that it can be dismissed out of hand - there is precedent and given the state of the current law, I think it’s possible. Maybe between 25% and 50%, non-inclusive. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/45 "2018-01-08T05:21:28Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Did you look at the VCF? One of the available charities is the CA Sea Otter Fund. The California Coastal Conservancy and the Department of Fish and Wildlife will each be allocated 50 percent of the contributions. Both of those are State of CA government departments. There is a 100% tax credit for those donations, and they are deductible at the federal level. The state benefits directly from this donation which directly contradicts your criteria. So again, how is this different? The funds are going to very specific programs within those agencies that, in their mission and structure, were set up to fit the IRS definition of a charitable organization. Again, the state can establish a charity, but that doesn’t mean it can be one. Notice that none of the VCF designations are used to fund the general operations of an agency, nor is there the option to make a federally-deductible donation directly to the state treasury. The question of whether the taxpayer would be deemed to receive benefit for a contribution to the Excellence Fund thus isn’t really relevant, I don’t think, because if the money is used to pay for the state’s day-to-day operations, I see little reason to expect that it will qualify as a charity at all. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/46 "2018-01-08T05:42:32Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > This sort of childish snark is why it’s hard to take right-wing banter seriously. Who has time to sift through confusion and gibberish hoping to find insight? **octopus** does have a point. If there’s one thing that Democrats have said consistently for decades, it’s that the rich should pay more in taxes. The recent tax overhaul by the Republicans eliminates the deduction for state income & property taxes only for those who pay over $10,000 on such taxes. Obviously this provision will lead to the rich paying more taxes. (First of all, it’s mainly the rich who itemize. Second, only the rich pay over $10,000 in state taxes.) So this a provision that increases taxes on the rich, and if the Democrats believe what they say they believe, they should be entirely in favor of it. Instead we see Democrats desperately trying to create a new loophole. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/47 "2018-01-08T05:56:22Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > I get a tax credit for putting a solar roof on my house. That’s a 1 for 1 quid pro quo. > Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk There was no charity involved in putting solar on your roof. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/48 "2018-01-08T06:15:12Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > **octopus** does have a point. If there’s one thing that Democrats have said consistently for decades, it’s that the rich should pay more in taxes. The recent tax overhaul by the Republicans eliminates the deduction for state income & property taxes only for those who pay over $10,000 on such taxes. Obviously this provision will lead to the rich paying more taxes. (First of all, it’s mainly the rich who itemize. Second, only the rich pay over $10,000 in state taxes.) So this a provision that increases taxes on the rich, and if the Democrats believe what they say they believe, they should be entirely in favor of it. > > Instead we see Democrats desperately trying to create a new loophole. Are you kidding? How many of the rich take every possible tax advantage to pay as little as possible, and have the means to hire the CPA’s who will find and use those advantages? How many are _not_ already incorporated to take advantage of business rates and loopholes? $10K is a pittance to them. If you think the new tax bill (I guess I should say ‘law,’ shouldn’t I?) isn’t going to end up reducing taxes on the wealthy at the cost of everyone else, you’re deluding yourself. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/49 "2018-01-08T06:28:18Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > As a general principle, it seems logical and fair that you should only be taxed on money that you actually receive, not some abstract theoretical number. So, if you’re being taxed by two entities, the second one should only tax you on what you have left after the first one takes its cut. In other words, either State taxes should be deductible from Federal, or Federal from State. > [@Riemann](#): > > Well, obviously the problem is that states have historically had priority in taxing people as they see fit first, then the Federal govt takes its percentage of what’s left. I wasn’t suggesting a solution to the problem, just that there is some logic to the deduction in principle. Obviously what you say would just cut CA revenues by a quarter. But I guess this isn’t a good faith discussion anyway. > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Certainly, a state can _establish_ a charity, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that a state can _be_ a charity. If California uses this fund as a replacement for general tax revenue and expends those funds toward general governmental operations, I expect that the IRS will deny any deduction. I expect this to end up in the supreme court. My understanding was that the reason state taxes weren’t taxable income was that taxing it (and potentially creating situations where a taxpayer was physically unable to pay taxes to the states) was an imposition of the federal government on the state’s ability to collect revenue for the states. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > **octopus** does have a point. If there’s one thing that Democrats have said consistently for decades, it’s that the rich should pay more in taxes. The recent tax overhaul by the Republicans eliminates the deduction for state income & property taxes only for those who pay over $10,000 on such taxes. Obviously this provision will lead to the rich paying more taxes. (First of all, it’s mainly the rich who itemize. Second, only the rich pay over $10,000 in state taxes.) So this a provision that increases taxes on the rich, and if the Democrats believe what they say they believe, they should be entirely in favor of it. > > Instead we see Democrats desperately trying to create a new loophole. Yes, the fairness issue is mostly that money is worth more in some parts of the country that other parts, so people who are taxes $10K are much richer in poor parts of the country than in richer parts, where money is worth less. That is, $10K is probably a typical middle-class tax burden in CT, but you’d have to be quite wealthy to owe that much in state tax in IN, where wages, salaries, real estate, and most everything else is cheaper. But yes, it is mostly a tax on those who can better afford to pay taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/50 "2018-01-08T13:48:14Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > The funds are going to very specific programs within those agencies that, in their mission and structure, were set up to fit the IRS definition of a charitable organization. Again, the state can establish a charity, but that doesn’t mean it can be one. Notice that none of the VCF designations are used to fund the general operations of an agency, nor is there the option to make a federally-deductible donation directly to the state treasury. This directly contradicts your assertion: from the [VCF FAQ(my bold):](https://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/vcfsr/vcf_faqs.shtml) > [@](#): > > If the taxpayer does not designate to a specific fund, the contribution will be transferred **to the General Fund.** > [@](#): > > The question of whether the taxpayer would be deemed to receive benefit for a contribution to the Excellence Fund thus isn’t really relevant, I don’t think, because if the money is used to pay for the state’s day-to-day operations, I see little reason to expect that it will qualify as a charity at all. That is inconsistent with how donations to other qualified entities works. A person can make a donation to a qualified entity to pay for the day to day operations of the ACLU for example, by donating an unrestricted amount. What is the distinction if it is the CA Excellence Fund? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/51 "2018-01-08T14:17:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The LA Times described it as “[the state’s version of setting up a shell company in the Cayman Islands in order to shelter Californians’ income.](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-salt-tax-gimmick-20180106-story.html)” What, if any, is the stated justification for treating this California Excellence Project charity differently from other charities? If I wanted to donate the amount of my CA taxes to the Mormon church, or some other charity, could I do that? Do they have a fig leaf to justify saying “some charities are more equal than others”? Otherwise, it would seem screamingly obvious that **HurricaneDitka** and the LA Times (_mirabile dictu)_ is right. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Arizona\_Mike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7cd45c/32.png) [@Arizona\_Mike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arizona_Mike)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/52 "2018-01-08T15:19:34Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > As a point of order, there’s a difference between a payment being allowed as a deductible under California taxes, and a payment being granted a tax credit. Let’s say, for the sake of simplifying the arithmetic, that California’s taxes are 50%. You make $100,000 dollars. You therefore owe the state of California $50,000 dollars. > > Now suppose that you earn $100,000 dollars, but then donate $50,000 to the charity of your choice. The amount of the donation is deducted from your income, before taxes are calculated, so now your taxable income is $50,000. So now the state takes $25,000, and you take home $25,000. > > But now suppose that California passes this plan. Now, you earn $100,000, and then donate $50,000 to the California Excellence Fund. The state of California doesn’t adjust your taxable income; instead, it adjusts the amount of taxes you need to pay. 50% of your income would be $50,000, but that’s offset by the $50,000 you paid to the California Excellence Fund, and so you don’t owe anything else, and thus take home $50,000. But in the second hypothetical case, there would be no need for someone with $100,000 income to donate to the California Excellence Fund to avoid SALT. You can deduct state taxes on your federal income tax, under the new tax bill, until your state taxes hit 10K a year (and a portion would still be deductible). In California, you would need to earn more than 140K a year before you owe 10K in state taxes. In New York, you would need to earn $170K before you hit the 10K cap, and again, you would still be able to deduct the amount paid under 10K. As income rises higher and higher it becomes a significant issue for the very wealthy. This is a de facto progressive tax that would largely impact only the very rich (of which California and New York have a large number), so I fail to see why the Democrats should oppose it. Shouldn’t the rich (even if many in this case are wealthy Democratic donors) pay a larger share of the tax burden? ---
**Author:** ![Arizona\_Mike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7cd45c/32.png) [@Arizona\_Mike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arizona_Mike)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/53 "2018-01-08T15:32:53Z")
Those wealthy taxpayers who try to claim California’s whacky tax dodge will, most likely, simply find that it is disallowed by the IRS, and they will be hit by a massive tax bill. New York’s plan is even daffier, as Cuomo has proposed a scheme to eliminate the state income tax, and instead put a new payroll tax that employers would have to pay. How will employers cover the massive new cost of subsidizing New York’s bloated bureaucracy? Gov. Cuomo says they can simply _cut the pay of all workers_ (including the majority of lower income workers, who are not even subject to the SALT tax) to cover the cost, all so New York’s wealthy elite can show they #RESIST, and to financially protect New York’s wealthy, largely Democrat, donor class. If ever there was a surefire plan to sway New York’s lower income voters against the Democratic party, Cuomo seems to have come up with it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/54 "2018-01-08T15:36:43Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What, if any, is the stated justification for treating this California Excellence Project charity differently from other charities? If I wanted to donate the amount of my CA taxes to the Mormon church, or some other charity, could I do that? > > Do they have a fig leaf to justify saying “some charities are more equal than others”? > > Otherwise, it would seem screamingly obvious that **HurricaneDitka** and the LA Times (_mirabile dictu)_ is right. While it is nice to see conservatives suddenly upset about tax loopholes - I guess they are bad when blue states get them - your donation to the Mormon Church would likely get your a tax deduction, but not a tax credit. However, if you chose to make a donation to a particular organization that support vouchers for kids to attend private schools (including religious schools) in Florida, Arizona, Louisiana, Alabama, or South Carolina, you would receive a 1:1 tax credit on your state income taxes. There are a handful more states in which you can receive a 50, 65, or 90% tax credit for your contributions. As much as I think of these as all somewhat underhanded policies, I’m at a loss to explain why those states can enact such laws and California cannot. I do think California would be on better ground if it sought to create a similar charitable organization focused on a single mission (like the other states did with education) rather than a supplement to California’s general fund. I am at a loss to explain why so many states have decided that donations to support, say, parochial schools are worthy of a 100% tax credit and donations to Planned Parenthood are not treated similarly. Oh wait, I can explain that very easily. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/55 "2018-01-08T16:17:28Z")
There was someone on MSNBC making this point this morning. Apparently there are 22 other states with similar tax credits on the books already, and these are largely red states. If they want to disallow this one loophole, they might end up raising taxes on a bunch of people in other states as well. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/56 "2018-01-08T16:32:57Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > While it is nice to see conservatives suddenly upset about tax loopholes - I guess they are bad when blue states get them … I’m not “upset”, I just don’t think it’s going to work out like they want it to. I’m operating under the assumption that the “California Excellence Fund” is intended to fund day-to-day operations of the California state government, as basically a replacement, or perhaps a companion fund, to the state’s general fund. I suspect the IRS will see that for the ruse it is. If California actually finds a clever way to avoid paying federal taxes, I suspect we will see “excellence funds” popping up in every state, and we can all ‘starve the beast’ together. Won’t that be fun! Frankly, this idea, and this thread about it, has a strikingly similar feel to the #CalExit one we did a while ago. ETA: [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-states/california-bill-uses-donations-to-avoid-trump-tax-changes-idUSKBN1EU25W) reported: > [@](#): > > The excellence fund would be created by the proposed legislation and exist within the state’s general fund, according to de Leon’s office. The bill did not provide details on how money in the fund would be used. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/57 "2018-01-08T16:39:32Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This directly contradicts your assertion: from the [VCF FAQ(my bold):](https://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/vcfsr/vcf_faqs.shtml) Ha! You’re quite right. I stand corrected. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/58 "2018-01-08T16:39:41Z")
**HD** - I bet you $5 that if California actually pursues this, the enacted version of the excellence fund will be somewhat more focused than “general fund.” Do we have a bet? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/59 "2018-01-08T16:50:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > **HD** - I bet you $5 that if California actually pursues this, the enacted version of the excellence fund will be somewhat more focused than “general fund.” Do we have a bet? I don’t want the hassle of trying to collect or give money to an anonymous stranger over the Internet and I’m certainly open to the possibility (perhaps even probability) that de Leon’s proposal gets modified in the future. At the moment, based on the answer his office has given to the press, it doesn’t appear to be any more focused than that, but I think we agree that they’d be on firmer footing if it was. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2018, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/60 "2018-01-08T16:56:15Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > While it is nice to see conservatives suddenly upset about tax loopholes - I guess they are bad when blue states get them - … Personally I think this is probably bad public policy and the more we reduce distortive tax policies at all levels the better. So reducing/eliminating the mortgage tax deduction, SALT deductions, all sorts of deductions and push more people towards standard deductions, the better generally speaking. Basically moving away from using tax law to incentivize or disincentivize behavior is preferable. My interest is primarily whether it would be legal and/or survive legal challenge. I think it’s an interesting thought experiment that is being played out in the real world. I’d also benefit, and I’m a fan of starving the beast, so there’s that kind of rooting for the home team element too. > [@Shodan](#): > > Otherwise, it would seem screamingly obvious that **HurricaneDitka** and the LA Times (_mirabile dictu)_ is right. The LA Time editorial didn’t opine that the plan would be disallowed or somehow not viable - it focused on the plan being unwise. My take was that they acknowledged it had potential, just thought CA shouldn’t go down that path. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016.md?page=4)