When California raised their income tax several years ago, they reduced federal revenue because of SALT. For example, $1 billion in new state taxes would reduce federal revenue by ~$300 million. That shortfall must then be covered by the whole country.

> That shortfall must then be covered by the whole country.

When Mississippi cuts benefits for its residents, my federal tax dollars pay for their disability insurance. When West Virginia fails to regulate its industry, educate its residents or build infrastructure, my tax dollars subsidise their choices. TL; DR It is odd to talk about subsidy when they generally flow from those hit by the SALT cap to those benefiting from this bill.

I don't understand what you're arguing for here, why should affluent CA/NY/CT tax payers receive a tax break paid for by everyone else? How would you argue for the SALT deduction if it never existed in the first place?

I also don't see why it's a problem that some states are donors, they have more to give. Federal spending should be progressive, otherwise it simply drives more inequality.

I won't argue for SALT per se. I do have an issue with the political logic the Congress used in singling out Democratic states. Furthermore, the bill as a whole was regressive. Arguing for the progressive lifting of a specific subsidy, within the general context of a regressive bill that increases interstate subsidies, is hypocrisy. So is requiring food stamp recipients to undergo a battery of expensive tests while their analogs at governmental level get increased handouts.

I don't think I'm being hypocritical for defending a good policy in a bad bill.

Quite fair--my apologies.