# 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:** 6
**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 9, 2018, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/101 "2018-01-09T21:57:55Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Hmm…Democrats not even consulted on the content of the bill, the vast majority of states that are impacted negatively being blue, the rush to vote before proper analyses can be completed? Sure as hell sounds like an end run to me. Just because something is shady doesn’t mean it is an end run. Frankly, I can’t see how anything you mentioned sounds like an end run to me. Sounds like you think everything you don’t like is an end run. > [@](#): > > NPO’s that are effectively run by the government? I don’t see much of a distinction. > [@Shodan](#): > > If the California Excellence fund is run by the government, then you are right - there is no distinction, and this is an attempt to collect state taxes, not charitable donations. Yeah, I’m no expert of charitable organizations, but if something is run by the government then it sounds to me like it is by definition not a charity. In my brief perusal or form 1023, sounds like it has to be a corporation, LLC, trust, or an unincorporated association. Can states establish and control such institutions? ---
**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 9, 2018, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/102 "2018-01-09T22:00:10Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If the California Excellence fund is run by the government, then you are right - there is no distinction, and this is an attempt to collect state taxes, not charitable donations. > > Regards, > Shodan You can’t have it both ways. Either all NPO’s that benefit states are attempts to collect state tax, or none are. But you’d rather treat CA’s plan differently. ---
**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 9, 2018, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/103 "2018-01-09T22:59:44Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Yeah, I’m no expert of charitable organizations, but if something is run by the government then it sounds to me like it is by definition not a charity. In my brief perusal or form 1023, sounds like it has to be a corporation, LLC, trust, or an unincorporated association. > > Can states establish and control such institutions? Donations to local governments are deductible for federal purposes per [26 U.S. Code § 170](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/170) - Charitable, etc., contributions and gifts: > [@](#): > > (c) Charitable contribution defined > For purposes of this section, the term “charitable contribution” means a contribution or gift to or for the use of— > (1) A State, a possession of the United States, or any political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or the United States or the District of Columbia, but only if the contribution or gift is made for exclusively public purposes. Deductible charitable contributions to states and local governments is allowed - since it’s to the local government, they’d be in control of it. ---
**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 9, 2018, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/104 "2018-01-09T23:03:20Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Donations to local governments are deductible for federal purposes per [26 U.S. Code § 170](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/170) - Charitable, etc., contributions and gifts: > Deductible charitable contributions to states and local governments is allowed - since it’s to the local government, they’d be in control of it. A big problem with this idea is that it’s really property taxes that kill us in CA. The $10K maximum deduction isn’t so bad if it only applied to state income taxes. But does this “charitable deduction” scheme encompass property taxes, too? If it doesn’t, then it’s no use to me. ---
**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 9, 2018, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/105 "2018-01-09T23:06:46Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Just because something is shady doesn’t mean it is an end run. Frankly, I can’t see how anything you mentioned sounds like an end run to me. Sounds like you think everything you don’t like is an end run. Semantics and nothing more. Let fire be fought with fire. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/106 "2018-01-09T23:07:03Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > In the above, did you mean to write “receipt”? No one’s receiving anything - they would be getting tax credit though. Getting a tax credit is the same thing as receiving something. Bottom line is that they’re not actually contributing anything to any charity. > [@Ravenman](#): > > So, provide some law to back up that opinion. You’re asserting that the IRS can just wake up one day and say, “Ya know, I just don’t feel like this particular 501(c)(whatever) is legit. Sure, the paperwork is in order, but it would be better if we treated them how we felt. Line up the documents, lawyers!” I don’t buy it. This is routinely done all the time. It’s a sham transaction, sort of like money laundering, where you give money to this guy and someone else pays you back. Finding this to be a non-contribution seems like an eminently reasonable position to me. > [@](#): > > Do you think the boogeyman stories about Lois Lerner is an example of how the IRS ought to be run? Beyond the above, the issue with Lois Lerner was that she was alleged to have treated conservative groups differently than other groups. That has nothing to do with what we’re discussing. I don’t think there’s ever been anything analogous to what’s being contemplated here, and this would be the first time the IRS would be taking a position on it. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2018, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/107 "2018-01-09T23:18:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > A big problem with this idea is that it’s really property taxes that kill us in CA. The $10K maximum deduction isn’t so bad if it only applied to state income taxes. But does this “charitable deduction” scheme encompass property taxes, too? If it doesn’t, then it’s no use to me. In my state we pay our property taxes to the county, but income taxes to the state. Is California similar? If so, I guess they might devise some reimbursement mechanism whereby the state pays counties that agreed to credit property owners for contributions to the California Excellence Fund in lieu of paying their property taxes, but that would make this thing seem even more transparently like a tax-avoidance scheme. ---
**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 9, 2018, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/108 "2018-01-09T23:50:12Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Getting a tax credit is the same thing as receiving something. > > Bottom line is that they’re not actually contributing anything to any charity. Did you see post #103? The law specifically defines contributions to a state or local government as a deductible charitable contribution. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/109 "2018-01-10T00:04:05Z")
What does that have to do with anything? That means if you give money to state or local governments over and above what you’re required to by law, then that amount is treated as charitable donation. That doesn’t mean that your taxes are also a charitable donation. That part is not a charitable donation at all. In this case, you’re being forgiven that non-charitable donation in exchange for this payment to the charity. ---
**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 10, 2018, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/110 "2018-01-10T00:19:08Z")
What does that have to do with anything? I thought it was pretty clear, but let’s try a different approach. So we’ve established: [ul][li]It’s possible to give directly to a state or local government and be considered a deductible charitable contribution for federal purposes[/li][li]States can establish state tax credits for whatever behavior they want to incentivize, like installing solar panels, buying low emission vehicles, hiring people who live in redevelopment zones, donating to various scholarship funds, etc.[/ul][/li]Agree on those two points? Let’s say the people of CA really really wanted to help the ACLU. The legislature pass a law and it is signed that says, for any donation to the ACLU, you will get a 1:1 state tax credit (can’t also deduct for state purposes). Assume no change to federal laws. First, do you think that would be permissible? Second, What do you think would happen at the state and federal level? 1. I absolutely think that would be legal and supportable at a state and federal level. 2. I think the federal deduction would remain unhindered, and the state credit would be no problem. Do you disagree with those? What would be the substantive difference if the CA Excellence Fund was substituted for the ACLU? ---
**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 10, 2018, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/111 "2018-01-10T00:53:57Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In my state we pay our property taxes to the county, but income taxes to the state. Is California similar? > > If so, I guess they might devise some reimbursement mechanism whereby the state pays counties that agreed to credit property owners for contributions to the California Excellence Fund in lieu of paying their property taxes, but that would make this thing seem even more transparently like a tax-avoidance scheme. We pay property taxes to the county. For many of us, property taxes \>\> state income taxes. CA is a pretty high tax state, but even here the tax rate does’t break though 10% until you’re making about $270K/year. But in Santa Clara County, where I live, the average home price is \> $1M, and the property tax rate is 1%, plus may 0.2% more for other local crap, so figure about 1.2% for property taxes. Now, not everyone who owns a home bought one recently, and lots of people have much lower property tax rates, but unless we can charitably donate property taxes, this effort is not going to make much difference for quite a few folks who itemize. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/112 "2018-01-10T01:21:00Z")
nevermind ---
**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 10, 2018, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/113 "2018-01-10T01:24:34Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Semantics and nothing more. Let fire be fought with fire. If you don’t want to engage in a semantic argument, this is the wrong thread for you; for the only purpose of the debate is to decide whether “donation” is or is not the same as “state tax.” > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Getting a tax credit is the same thing as receiving something. Really? So if I illegally take a tax deduction, I’m not guilty of fraud, I’m guilty of theft? [quite]This is routinely done all the time. It’s a sham transaction, sort of like money laundering, where you give money to this guy and someone else pays you back. Finding this to be a non-contribution seems like an eminently reasonable position to me. [/quote] I asked you for some low to back up your opinion, and you responded with more of your opinions about the law. I don’t care to hear your opinion repeated ad nauseum. I’m asking for the law that backs up your claim. > [@](#): > > I don’t think there’s ever been anything analogous to what’s being contemplated here, and this would be the first time the IRS would be taking a position on it. If you think there has “[n]ever been anything analogous to what’s being contemplated here” then you haven’t read this thread. There are half a dozen states that provide for full state tax credits for educational charities that were created for literally no other reason than to circumvent laws regarding state funding of religious schools. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/114 "2018-01-10T02:30:00Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > It just occurred to me that the argument of “the IRS will see through this and audit all Californians!” is missing an important step. The IRS doesn’t get to make up tax laws at its whim. There are statutes that define what a charitable organization is. If the Excellence Fund meets those criteria, then the IRS isn’t going to have much of a case of/when this ends up in court. Also, there’s the obvious fact that the IRS is going to be rather more circumspect about challenging a deduction taken by millions of people based on guidance from the State of California’s legal framework than they are about challenging a deduction taken by dozens of people based on guidance from Gooflequack Q. Soverignut’s opinion that Ohio was not properly admitted to the Union in 1803 (if only because the commissioner of the IRS, given modern political precident, may have visions of being on the wrong end of a Lois Lerner treatment once the Democrats take a house of Congress). ---
**Author:** ![glowacks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/glowacks/32/5548_2.png) [@glowacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glowacks)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/115 "2018-01-10T02:45:53Z")
Can someone please provide a cite that California provides a 100% state income tax credit for donations to the ACLU? They very well may give you a _deduction_ for that donation, but that’s a long way from a 100% credit. I’ve looked superficially and can’t find anything. I doubt it’s true. In fact, I very highly doubt it’s true for anything similar. Can anyone provide proof that there exists some state and some charity such that said state provides a 100% tax credit for a donation to said charity? Reminder: A tax credit reduces the amount of tax you owe (or increases your refund, if refundable). A deduction reduces the amount of your taxable income. Since tax rates are not 100%, and state income tax rates not particularly high at all, a deduction is generally far weaker than a credit. The only kinds of things that you get 100% credit for are direct payments to the governmental body for which you are determining the amount of tax you owe, and is not made for any other purpose, or was intended for another purpose but you overpaid. For instance, if you make a lot of money and have more than one job in a year, you might have more than the statutory limit of Social Security taken out of your pay since one employer doesn’t know how much the other is paying you. You are given a refundable credit for the excess amount on your income taxes, even though the tax was withheld as a payroll tax. (Actually, it doesn’t matter if they know - they are required to withhold and match the FICA amount even if they know you’ll get back what they’re withholding for you.) Most credits are instead percentages of what you paid, and are used in instances where deductions would be less help to a taxpayer. Again, my contention is that what California is suggesting is too direct a quid pro quo for which there is no precedent, because I highly doubt any state is that generous with their tax credits for charitable donations. To respond to others about the fact that businesses are getting something out of their charitable donation if they get to deduct it: Again, tax rates are not 100%, and the business loses 100% of the money it donates and only receives a tax benefit of a fraction of it. If it wasn’t getting something else, it wouldn’t donate. Yet public corporations beholden to increase shareholder value still do it, presumably because they believe the publicity or goodwill will allow them to increase their profits by more than they are donating. No one is directly providing a benefit to the corporation on a quid pro quo basis like that which is baldly evident in California’s plan. That is what the IRS will look for when determining whether you received a benefit from your donation, and they certainly don’t care about any legal separation of the donee and reimburser, they only care whether you expect to get some easily measurable value in a direct quid pro quo. That is clearly the case here. ---
**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 10, 2018, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/116 "2018-01-10T02:51:58Z")
> [@glowacks](#): > > Can someone please provide a cite that California provides a 100% state income tax credit for donations to the ACLU? They very well may give you a _deduction_ for that donation, but that’s a long way from a 100% credit. I’ve looked superficially and can’t find anything. I doubt it’s true. In fact, I very highly doubt it’s true for anything similar. Can anyone provide proof that there exists some state and some charity such that said state provides a 100% tax credit for a donation to said charity? > > … > > Again, my contention is that what California is suggesting is too direct a quid pro quo for which there is no precedent, because I highly doubt any state is that generous with their tax credits for charitable donations. I agree there was some confusion on this point earlier in the thread, but there are indeed some tax credits for certain charitable contributions in certain states. > **[Scholarship tax credit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarship_tax_credit)** > > In the United States, scholarship tax credits, also called tax credit scholarships, education tax credits or tuition tax credits, are a form of school choice that allows individuals or corporations to receive a tax credit from state taxes against donations made to non-profit organizations that grant private school scholarships. At the start of the 2014–2015 school year, fourteen states had scholarship tax credit programs. > The first scholarship tax credit program was Arizona's Personal Tax Credi... ---
**Author:** ![glowacks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/glowacks/32/5548_2.png) [@glowacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glowacks)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/117 "2018-01-10T02:53:32Z")
Ok, you also tend to get 100% credit for Foreign Taxes paid even though they weren’t paid the US government. But that requires either having a small amount of passive income, or thoroughly filling out form 1116 to prove that what you paid in taxes to the foreign government is less than what you would have paid to the US government if it wasn’t taxed by the foreign government. In many cases, people will not get 100% of their foreign taxes paid as a credit because the foreign tax rate was effectively higher than the US’s. And the entire reason the US does this is that it has tax treaties with effectively everyone that has the other country do the same thing (mutatis mutandis). ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/118 "2018-01-10T02:55:58Z")
> [@glowacks](#): > > Can someone please provide a cite that California provides a 100% state income tax credit for donations to the ACLU? They very well may give you a _deduction_ for that donation, but that’s a long way from a 100% credit. I’ve looked superficially and can’t find anything. I doubt it’s true. In fact, I very highly doubt it’s true for anything similar. Can anyone provide proof that there exists some state and some charity such that said state provides a 100% tax credit for a donation to said charity? I don’t believe anyone said the specific first statement. It was as a for example. As for the second. Several examples have been provided. Here’s another one, the first one Google popped up for me. > **[Tax Credits for Religious Schools Survive Challenge](https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/tax-credits-for-religious-schools-survive-challenge/2011/04)** > > The U.S. Supreme Court rules 5-4 against taxpayers who sought to overturn an Arizona program aiding religious schools. The relevant statement is: The [US Supreme] court ruled in a challenge to Arizona’s 14-year-old tuition-aid plan, under which taxpayers can receive a dollar-for-dollar credit of up to $500 (or $1,000 for married couples) on their state income-tax returns for donations to “school tuition organizations,” or STOs. ---
**Author:** ![glowacks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/glowacks/32/5548_2.png) [@glowacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glowacks)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/119 "2018-01-10T03:13:13Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I agree there was some confusion on this point earlier in the thread, but there are indeed some tax credits for certain charitable contributions in certain states. > > [Scholarship tax credit - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarship_tax_credit) I can’t find anything that says that those donations are deductible in the computation of federal tax liability. See [http://azcredits.org/](http://azcredits.org/) - One would think that when saying how they have no net cost to the donor, that they would go on to say that in addition they are deductible for federal tax purposes and thus save them more money than they spend. Do you really think that the IRS would be allowing people to shovel money somewhere at no cost to themselves with respect to state taxes and also get to deduct it for federal tax purposes? The tax credit makes the deduction not deductible for federal tax purposes, because it is a direct quid pro quo. ---
**Author:** ![glowacks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/glowacks/32/5548_2.png) [@glowacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glowacks)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016/120 "2018-01-10T03:16:07Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > I don’t believe anyone said the specific first statement. It was as a for example. > > As for the second. Several examples have been provided. Here’s another one, the first one Google popped up for me. > [Tax Credits for Religious Schools Survive Challenge](https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/04/04/28scotus.h30.html) > > The relevant statement is: The [US Supreme] court ruled in a challenge to Arizona’s 14-year-old tuition-aid plan, under which taxpayers can receive a dollar-for-dollar credit of up to $500 (or $1,000 for married couples) on their state income-tax returns for donations to “school tuition organizations,” or STOs. No one in that article addressed the federal deductibility either. Amazing. Such a huge benefit to participating in a program, seeing as you make money if you do so, and yet people are not shouting it all over the place. Seems unlikely. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-proposal-to-allow-its-residents-to-avoid-the-10-000-tax-deduction-limitation/806016.md?page=7)