Major SALT Deduction Cap Boost Passes Senate. Here's Who Would Benefit
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The U.S. Senate has passed a significant expansion to the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT), more than tripling the cap from $10,000 to $40,000 starting in 2025.
Senators voted 50-50 on President Donald Trump's broad tax and spending bill on Tuesday, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tiebreaking vote.
The increased SALT deduction cap would phase out for those earning above $500,000 and increase 1 percent annually until 2029, then revert to the current $10,000 limit in 2030.
Why It Matters
The move marks a dramatic reversal in policy on SALT deductions, one of the most contentious features of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and has implications for millions of taxpayers, especially those living in high-tax states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California where property and income taxes often far exceed the old $10,000 cap.
Analysts have said the provision will most likely benefit wealthier Americans who have high property taxes, as taxes paid on income and property ownership are typically the largest for those who itemize their taxes.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (center), shown with Senator John Barrasso, the GOP whip (left), and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, speaks to reporters after Senate passage of the budget reconciliation package of President Donald...
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (center), shown with Senator John Barrasso, the GOP whip (left), and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, speaks to reporters after Senate passage of the budget reconciliation package of President Donald Trump's signature bill of big tax breaks and spending cuts, at the Capitol in Washington on July 1, 2025. More
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
What To Know
Prior to 2017, taxpayers who itemized deductions could fully subtract the amount paid in state and local income, property and sales taxes from their federal taxable income.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposed a $10,000 cap on these deductions, a limit that mostly affected residents of states with higher tax rates.
Along with raising the cap to $40,000 until 2029, the Senate bill also increases a tax break for pass-through businesses to 23 percent while clamping down on a frequently used tax loophole for certain pass-through businesses.
The House bill had proposed the same higher limit and $500,000 income phaseout but for a longer period of time, rising 1 percent each year from 2026 to 2033. The House also blocked certain white-collar professionals from being able to use a popular SALT deduction workaround.
While the Senate version appears to be cheaper for the federal government, given its shorter time frame, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) said that "it's actually far more generous."
The CRFB said the Senate's direct SALT relief is "roughly 10 percent larger than the House," adding that it estimated the Senate changes would cost $325 billion while the House bill would cost roughly $200 billion.
Affluent homeowners and high-income individuals stand to benefit the most from the expanded cap, according to the Tax Foundation's May analysis.
The Tax Foundation also warned that the Senate's provisions would cost about $320 billion more than an extension of the existing cap, and cost $150 billion more than a $30,000 cap.
"The bill is already suffering from a math problem," Tax Foundation analysts wrote. "This is a recipe for worsening deficits at a time when Congress needs to be more concerned about the country's fiscal outlook."
What People Are Saying
Owen Zidar, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, told Newsweek: "The broader bill and the SALT cap increase are a boon for high-income taxpayers, especially high-income private business owners who got a special loophole that lets them avoid the SALT caps. Millions are estimated to lose health insurance coverage. The bill is very irresponsible fiscally. It's mortgaging our future for our children.
"The increase in the deficits will put pressure on interest rates and crowd out productive investment, hurting economic growth."
What Happens Next
After being passed by the Senate, the GOP tax bill will now head to the Joint Conference Committee for reconciliation of differences between the Senate and House.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump signs ‘One Big Beautiful Bill' into law: What that means for your money
President Donald Trump signed the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) into law Friday, a budget that will have far-reaching repercussions on millions of Americans' bank accounts, for better and worse. The legislation is extensive, including hundreds of provisions that touch everything from individual rates to student loans to the estate tax. It attempts to pay for the included tax breaks by slashing spending on social safety net programs like Medicaid and nutritional benefits, as well as green energy programs. Even with these cuts, it is expected to add $3.1 to $3.5 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. Along with provisions directly affecting Americans' personal finances, it earmarks hundreds of billions of dollars for the president's deportation efforts. It also creates a dual-class tax structure: one for citizens and their families, and another for those with at least one immigrant member, regardless of whether they are documented or not. Various analyses of the bill's provisions find it will benefit wealthy Americans far more than lower-income earners. In fact, after-tax-transfer income for the lowest-earning 20% of Americans drops by an estimated $245 next year, increasing to a loss of $1,385 annually by 2033, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM). Future generations are also 'uniformly worse off,' according to PWBM. 'All future generations experience one-time welfare losses, ranging from -$22,000 for the lowest income quintile to -$5,700 for the highest,' the analysis reads. 'A middle-income child born today would see a $9,800 loss.' The Yale Budget Lab finds similar outcomes: It estimates changes to taxes and Medicaid and SNAP would lead to a $700 decrease in income for the lowest 20% of earners, while the top 1% would see a $30,000 increase. Republicans say it will have positive effects throughout the economy. 'There's a view that there's a lot of potential economic growth from the bill that will have a positive impact on the economy,' says Marc Gerson, member at Miller & Chevalier and former majority tax counsel for the U.S. Ways and Means Committee. The legislation, which totals almost 1,000 pages, is far-reaching, and the details of how many provisions will be implemented still need to be worked out. For example, while it calls for no federal taxes on some tips and overtime, the IRS still needs to write those regulations for businesses and individual taxpayers to follow. All that said, exactly how it will affect people is unknown at this time. Additionally, many of the individual tax cut provisions are temporary, lasting generally through 2028 (this differs by provision, though, and will be noted if the information is available). Here's what financial advisors and experts say Americans need to know about the OBBB now. The bill makes permanent certain provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), including lower individual tax rates compared to what was in place before then: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35%, 37%. That said, these rates have been in place since the 2018 tax year, so many taxpayers are already accustomed to them. It also eliminates personal and dependent exemptions, and some itemized deductions while keeping the doubled standard deduction (compared to pre-TCJA). Under the bill, the standard deduction for 2025 is $15,750 for single taxpayers, $31,500 for joint filers, and $23,625 for heads of household. 'If you don't qualify for new tax benefits, your tax outcome may look similar to last year's since many provisions under the TCJA are being made permanent,' notes TurboTax. For the super wealthy, the bill makes permanent the doubling of the estate tax exemption from the TCJA. For decedents dying in 2026 and beyond, up to $15 million (and $30 million for couples) is exempt from the federal estate tax, and this exemption will be indexed for inflation. That mostly benefits individuals with estates in excess of $7.5 million, says Jane Ditelberg, director of tax planning at Northern Trust Wealth Management, the old exemption amount. 'Locking in the $15 million exemption indefinitely brings certainty to families planning major wealth transfers,' says Ditelberg. 'For more than two decades, taxpayers have faced a moving target, with the applicable rules changing depending on the year of death. This takes that risk off the table.' Under the bill, the child tax credit is increased from $2,000 per child to $2,200, and is subject to annual inflation increases. The bill requires the taxpayer claiming the credit, the taxpayer's spouse, and the child to have Social Security numbers. In place of eliminating taxes on Social Security, Americans 65 or older will see a temporary 'bonus' deduction of up to $6,000 on their income taxes. This will be available to single filers making a modified adjusted gross income up to $75,000, or couples making up to $150,000, for tax years 2025 to 2028. Car buyers will be able to deduct up to $10,000 of interest per year on new auto loans. This is limited by income: it phases out for single filers with incomes above $100,000 (and $200,000 for married couples). It also only applies to cars assembled in the United States. This is available for those who itemize and those who do not. The bill provides above-the-line deductions for some tip income and overtime pay for certain workers, fulfilling one of Trump's campaign promises. That said, there are important restrictions to keep in mind about both. Those with tip income can deduct up to $25,000 for qualified tips from their federal tax bill, phasing out for those with income above $150,000. This is in place for tax years 2025 to 2028. 'It's essential to understand that this deduction doesn't directly reduce your taxes dollar-for-dollar, and your actual tax savings will depend on your tax rate,' notes TurboTax. Those earning overtime pay can deduct up to $12,500 ($25,000 for married couples filing jointly), depending on income. Like the tipped income provision, this is available for tax years 2025 through 2028 and phases out for income above $150,000. Because many tipped workers are low-income, almost 40% already don't pay federal taxes on their tips, says Meg Wheeler, certified public accountant and founder of The Equitable Money Project. Additionally, tipped workers should know they will still technically owe state and employment taxes like Social Security and Medicare on their tips—it's still reportable income. This is not a total exclusion from paying taxes. 'We know that lots of tipped workers don't necessarily report all of their tips. So just even right there, that will be an interesting shift,' says Wheeler. 'I also am curious about whether or not this pushes more employers or even more employees to want to move to a tipped model, because they think this is helpful.' Gerson says these provisions—which the IRS will need to write guidance on before they are implemented—may create additional discrepancies on how workers are taxed in the same workplace. That can lead to headaches for business owners, as well as create tension among employees who are compensated differently. 'If you take a restaurant, you have some people who are tipped and will benefit from the exclusion, and then you have people that aren't tipped and won't benefit from it,' he says. 'It just has an impact on workforce dynamics. Some people [may] no longer want to be salaried because they can get in overtime.' The bill makes a number of changes to the federal student loan program starting in 2026, many of which will make payments higher for borrowers. The bill reduces the number of income-based repayment plans, phasing out the Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR), Pay As You Earn (PAYE) and Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plans starting in July 2026. Current borrowers will have two years to switch to a version of the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) plan, the standard repayment plan, or the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP), a new offering. New borrowers, meanwhile, will only be able to enroll in the RAP. 'Many existing borrowers will see higher monthly payments under these new plans, though the current iteration of the bill at least allows more time to change plans,' says Kate Wood, loans expert and writer at NerdWallet. 'As of now, student loan forgiveness still appears to be on the table, though RAP requires up to 30 years of repayment first, a longer repayment timeline than any current plan.' One of the big differences, says Wheeler, is that RAP has a minimum monthly payment. This is different from some of the current income-based repayment plans, which allow some borrowers to pay very low amounts or nothing at all, depending on their earnings. 'Now, all of a sudden they have to jump up to this minimum just because that's the rule, that's the law,' says Wheeler. 'I think that's going to be, right off the bat, a huge issue.' It also lowers the limits on graduate school loans, eliminates the federal Grad PLUS program altogether, and caps Parent PLUS borrowing. These changes apply to new loans starting July 1, 2026. While the high cost of graduate school has been a target of people who want to reform the student loan system in the U.S., experts say limiting how many federal loans borrowers can take out won't solve much. Instead, it means they will have to rely on private loans—which have fewer protections for borrowers and potentially higher interest rates—or skip higher education altogether. Those attending professional school for law or medicine may have the most to lose. One of the more contentious aspects of passing the bill was what to do with the cap on state and local tax deductions, or the SALT cap. Trump's 2017 tax bill put a cap of $10,000 on it; that cap has been increased to $40,000. This is one of the most expensive provisions in the bill. Taxpayers in California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York stand to benefit the most: They account for 40 of the 50 top congressional districts affected by the cap. The cap reverts to $10,000 in 2030. 'It's increased relief, but it is temporary,' says Gerson. 'And so it's something that Congress will have to revisit.' The bill establishes so-called Trump accounts, which are a new type of tax-favored account for newborns. Children born between 2025 and 2028 will receive $1,000. The bill makes dramatic cuts to Medicaid, which is the health care program for low-income, disabled, and some senior Americans. It will also affect those who have Affordable Care Act (ACA) health care coverage. People on Medicaid will face strict new work requirements for able-bodied adults, and eligibility checks will increase from every 12 months to every six months. Estimates put the number of those losing health coverage at around 16 million Americans. 'It's very likely that people will lose coverage even if they still qualify, just due to the administrative burden,' says Kate Ashford, investing specialist at NerdWallet. 'It's also likely that some hospitals in rural areas that rely on Medicaid funding will reduce services or close, meaning that people in those communities may have to travel far or go without care if they get sick or injured.' Americans with ACA health insurance coverage will have to re-verify eligibility for tax credits each year, adding an additional hurdle to renewing. It also does not extend the ACA subsidies that help many Americans afford their coverage. 'If those expire, ACA health insurance costs will go up substantially, placing real stress on people's budgets and potentially resulting in people dropping health insurance,' says Ashford. 'Many immigrants who are legally residing in the U.S. will also lose access to ACA subsidies, forcing many of them to end coverage and raising rates for people who remain on plans.' Allowing the subsidies to expire will also raise costs substantially on small business owners who rely on ACA coverage, says Ashford, as will the Medicaid cuts. She says small business owners and other entrepreneurs may find that health insurance coverage is now too expensive to enter the field. This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
BlackRock Halted Ukraine Fund Talks After Trump's Election Win
BlackRock Inc. halted its search for investors to back a multibillion-dollar Ukraine recovery fund earlier this year after Donald Trump's election victory saw the US sour on the eastern European country, people familiar with the discussions said. The fund, meant to be unveiled at next week's Ukraine Recovery Conference in Rome, was close to securing initial support from entities backed by the governments of Germany, Italy and Poland, the people said, declining to be identified discussing private information.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
How Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is standing out from her liberal colleagues
From the Supreme Court's mahogany bench, the newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, has sparred with Amy Coney Barrett and other voices of the right. Moneyed interests and power are among her targets. WASHINGTON − After Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett announced from the court's mahogany bench last month that lower court judges had gone too far in pausing President Donald Trump's changes to birthright citizenship, the court's liberals got their turn. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the most senior of the three justices appointed by Democratic presidents, read parts of the trio's joint dissent for about twice as long as Barrett had described the conservative majority's opinion. She even added a line that doesn't appear in the written version. 'The other shoe has dropped on presidential immunity,' Sotomayor said, referencing the court's landmark 2024 decision limiting when presidents can be prosecuted for actions they take in office. But it was a separate written dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that reverberated the most, in large part because of Barrett's scathing reaction to it. 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,' Barrett wrote. More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. Jackson's words repeatedly drew attention It wasn't the first time in recent months that Jackson's words drew attention. In a case about air pollution rules, Jackson said the case "gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.' When her conservative colleagues gave Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration, Jackson said the court was sending a 'troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the Trump administration. Speaking at a judge's conference in May, Jackson condemned the attacks Trump and his allies were making on judges who ruled against his policies. Her warning that the 'threats and harassment' could undermine the Constitution and the rule of law was stronger than concerns expressed by Sotomayor and by Chief Justice John Roberts. And during the eight months that the justices heard cases, Jackson – the court's newest member in an institution that reveres seniority – once again spoke by far the most. 'I definitely do think Justice Jackson really prioritizes developing her own jurisprudence and thoughts and voice,' said Brian Burgess, a partner at the law firm Goodwin who clerked for Sotomayor. 'I can see Justice Jackson evolving into someone that wants to speak directly to the public to express the concerns of that side of the court.' A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story Jackson spoke up early and often Nominated by President Joe Biden in 2022 to succeed Justice Stephen Breyer, Jackson wasted no time being heard. During her first two weeks on the court, she spoke more than twice as many words as any of her colleagues. When asked about her volubility, Jackson has said she became used to operating solo on the bench during her eight years as a federal trial court judge. She hasn't shown many signs of adjusting. Since October, Jackson spoke 50% more words on the bench than Sotomayor who was the next talkative, according to statistics compiled by Adam Feldman and Jake S. Truscott for the Empirical SCOTUS blog. 'She's the only one that has ever done what she's doing in terms of total volume of speech in her first few terms,' said Feldman, a lawyer and political scientist. `She wanted me my voice.' Jackson has been working on her communications skills since elementary school when her mother enrolled her in a public speaking program. 'She wanted me to get out there and use my voice,' Jackson said during an appearance at the Kennedy Center last year to talk about her memoir. And it's not just her voice. Jackson wrote more – either opinions, concurrences or dissents – this term than anyone except Justice Clarence Thomas, according to Empirical SCOTUS blog. Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said he is going to add her dissent in the air pollution case to his course on federal courts. 'She is calling things as she sees them,' Vladeck said on the liberal Strict Scrutiny podcast. Jackson went further than her liberal colleagues Jackson went further in that case, and in some others, than her liberal colleagues. Sotomayor wrote her own dissent of the majority's ruling that fuel producers can challenge California emissions standards under a federal air pollution law. And Kagan was in the 7-2 majority. In fact, Kagan was in the majority more often this term than all but Roberts, Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh – the three conservatives who often control the direction of the court. Jackson was in the majority the least often. 'You see Justice Kagan really shifting away from Justices Sotomayor and Jackson,' legal analyst Sarah Isgur said on the podcast Advisory Opinion where she dissects the court with fellow conservatives. Different ways of being influential Burgess, the former Sotomayor clerk, disputed that. He said the times Kagan voted against both Sotomayor and Jackson were not high-profile defections. For example, in the air pollution case, Burgess suspects Kagan agreed with Jackson that the court should not have heard the fuel producers' appeal in part because their underlying complaint was likely to be addressed by the Trump administration. But once they took the case, the justices decided the legal issue in a way that didn't break a lot of new ground, he said. 'I think she seems to be more interested in coalition building and finding ways to eke out wins,' Burgess said of Kagan's overall style. 'That's one way to be influential. Another way to be influential is to try to stake out different views and hope that history comes along to your position over time.' Attack on `pure textualism' In one of Jackson's strong dissents, in a case about whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protected a disabled retiree whose health benefits were reduced, Sotomayor was on board – except for a footnote. In that lengthy paragraph, Jackson criticized her conservative colleagues' use of 'pure textualism' as 'certainly somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.' 'She's saying what I think so many of us have been thinking,' Vladeck said on the podcast. He wondered whether Sotomayor didn't sign onto that footnote because she didn't agree with it or because she wanted to 'let Jackson have it for herself and not take credit for what really is an unusually strong accusation of methodological manipulation by one of the justices.' `With deep disillusionment, I dissent.' Strong accusations flew in both directions about the court's ruling limiting the ability of judges to pause Trump's policies. In her solo dissent, Jackson called the majority's 'legalese' a smokescreen obscuring a 'basic question of enormous legal and practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?' 'The very institution our founding charter charges with the duty to ensure universal adherence to the law now requires judges to shrug and turn their backs to intermittent lawlessness,' she wrote. 'With deep disillusionment, I dissent.' Barrett said there's no dispute that presidents must obey the law. 'But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation – in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so,' she wrote. Jackson, Barrett said, would 'do well to heed her own admonition' that everyone from the president on down is bound by the law. 'That goes for judges too,' she wrote. A focus on real-world impact and individual rights Legal commentator David Lat said Barrett's response departed from her usual 'rather restrained rhetoric.' In a Substack article, Lat noted that Barrett once described herself as a 'one jalapeño gal' compared to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom Barrett clerked, who had a 'five jalapeño' style. Feldman said it's possible that Jackson's willingness to vocalize her disagreements with her conservative colleagues is getting under their skins. In a February article about how Barrett and Jackson are shaping the future of constitutional law, Feldman said the two sharp legal minds approach cases from strikingly different angles on how the law should function and who it should protect. Barrett prioritizes legal precision and institutional boundaries while Jackson focuses on real-world impact and individual rights, he wrote. When people look back at the Trump case, he told USA TODAY, they will be talking about Jackson's dissent. 'That's probably the one from the term,' he said, 'that will last the longest.'
