6 Comments
User's avatar
Susan Waldron's avatar

Most of the bill is horrendous (particularly the backdoor way to preventing courts from slowing Trump's roll via funding shenanigans), but I'm curious about the SALT deduction. That actually sounds like a good thing, especially since it's not available to the rich. Is there a 'gotcha' that I'm missing?

Expand full comment
Cindy Casey's avatar

No, you are correct. It helps the middle class for sure. Republicans fought tooth and nail to toss it altogether, so the changes were significent. Unfortunately, it is technically another tax cut, for the rich (but yes, it helps all homeowners).

Expand full comment
Susan Waldron's avatar

I thought it was limited to taxpayers making less than $400,000/year, so not applicable to the "really" rich?

Expand full comment
Cindy Casey's avatar

That number puts you in the top 25%, so yes, not the uber rich, but still rich by most standards. Just for fun, here is the breakdown. The top 1% requires a net worth of $11.6 million to $13.7 million. The top 5%, a net worth of $1.17 million to $2.7 million, and the top 10% require between $970,900 and $1.9 million. The income for the bottom 10% is $10,265 Bottom 25% $28,000 and the median income is $50,200.

It is also important to remember that with our tax structure, you could be in the top tiers, but declared income still hits that $400,000.

Expand full comment
Susan Waldron's avatar

I think my definition of "rich" is skewed from living in the Bay Area. A single person earning $100,000/year can be considered poor in four Bay Area counties!!

Expand full comment
Cindy Casey's avatar

👍

Expand full comment