House Republican tax bill passes 'SALT' deduction cap of $40,000. Here's who benefits
House lawmakers on Thursday morning passed changes for the federal deduction for state and local taxes, known as SALT, as part of President Donald Trump's tax package.
Enacted via the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TCJA, of 2017, there's currently a $10,000 limit on the SALT deduction, and raising that cap has been a priority for certain House lawmakers in high-tax states like New York, New Jersey and California. Filers must itemize deductions to claim the tax break for SALT.
If the House provision is enacted, the SALT cap would rise to $40,000, up from $30,000 in the previous plan, and phases out over $500,000, according to revised language released by the House Rules Committee. The provision would go into effect in 2025.
The SALT cap and income phaseout would increase annually by 1% from 2026 through 2033, according to the text.
More from Personal Finance:Senate passed a surprise 'no tax on tips' bill. What it could mean GOP aims to axe EV, green tax credits. Act 'now' to claim, experts sayTrump tariffs create the 'perfect storm' for financial scams
The revised text would also reduce itemized deductions for certain taxpayers in the 37% income tax bracket, which could reduce the benefit of the higher SALT cap.
For 2025, the top rate of 37% applies to individuals with taxable income above $626,350, and married couples filing jointly earning $751,600 or more.
However, the House proposal for changes to the SALT deduction could still face pushback in the Senate.
When filing taxes, you pick the greater of the standard deduction or your itemized deductions, including SALT capped at $10,000, medical expenses above 7.5% of your adjusted gross income, charitable gifts and others.
Starting in 2018, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act doubled the standard deduction, and it adjusts for inflation yearly. For 2025, the standard deduction is $15,000 for single filers and $30,000 for married couples filing jointly. These could increase under the House-proposed tax bill.
Under the current thresholds, the vast majority of filers — roughly 90%, according to the latest IRS data — use the standard deduction and don't benefit from itemized tax breaks.
"Any changes to lift the cap would primarily benefit higher earners," Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation, wrote in an analysis on Tuesday.
With an income phaseout over $400,000, the top 20% of taxpayers "would be the only group to meaningfully benefit," Watson wrote.
But members of the so-called "SALT Caucus" argue the SALT deduction limit is a middle-class issue in their districts.
Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-NJ., co-chair of the SALT Caucus, told CNBC's "The Exchange" on Tuesday that a full repeal of the $10,000 SALT deduction limit would be a "huge tax cut and benefit for middle-class families around the country."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
14 minutes ago
- Vox
Why Donald Trump soured on some of his own judges
Late last month, approximately 1 billion news cycles ago, an obscure federal court made President Donald Trump very, very mad. The US Court of International Trade ruled unanimously on May 28 that the massive tariffs Trump imposed after taking office again are illegal. That ruling was suspended the next day by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the tariffs will be allowed to remain in effect pending a ruling (arguments are scheduled for late July). But the appellate court's decision didn't soothe Trump. He took to Truth Social on May 29 to post a 510-word screed attacking the judges on the Court of International Trade, before turning his ire toward a more surprising candidate — Leonard Leo, the most important person in the conservative legal movement. 'I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges,' Trump wrote, reminiscing about his first term. 'I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.' This breakup surprised many commentators. But not David French. 'If you're familiar with how the conservative legal movement has interacted with MAGA, you have seen this coming for a while,' French, a New York Times columnist, lawyer, and onetime member of the Federalist Society, told Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram. 'You knew this was coming after 2020. Because in 2020, after Trump had really stocked the federal judiciary with an awful lot of FedSoc judges and justices…none of them, zero of them, helped him try to steal the election.' French spoke with Today, Explained about the origins of the (other) big, beautiful breakup and what it means for the Trump administration and the future of the federal judiciary. Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Federalist Society? I am not now, but I have been a member of the Federalist Society. I was a member of the Federalist Society either all three years of law school or the first two years of law school. But it was also a very different time. I think the Federalist Society at the law school at that time, when we would have meetings, maybe 10 or 12 people would show up. Things have changed. One of the most conspicuous changes is that FedSoc has become an enemy of the president of the United States. From [2020] forward, you began to see this drifting apart between FedSoc and MAGA. When Trump comes back into office and he doubles down on being Donald Trump, all of this became very, very predictable. Because if the Trump administration's argument dovetailed with their originalist legal philosophy, they would rule for it. But if it was just simply Trump's lawless demands, they were going to reject it. And Trump is baffled by this distinction. He's baffled by it because congressional Republicans haven't drawn this line at all. When Trump's demands conflict with conservative principles, they will yield to Trump's demands every time. And the judges and justices have taken the opposite tack to such an extent that Republican-nominated judges have ruled against Trump about 72 percent of the time, which is remarkably close to about the 80 percent or so of the time that Democratic-appointed judges have ruled against Trump. You mentioned a whole host of issues where FedSoc judges have perhaps not given Trump what he wanted. Does the one that finally tips Trump off to go for it on Truth Social surprise you? It doesn't, because what really set him off was striking down tariffs. To the extent that Trump loves a policy, he loves tariffs. The Court of International Trade struck it down, and it was pointed out to him that one of the judges on the Court of International Trade that struck down the tariffs was appointed by him. He had been ranting about judges in general. Now he got specific with Leonard Leo; he got specific with the FedSoc. People like me who'd been watching this for a very long time were not wondering if this was going to happen. We were just wondering what was going to be the tipping point: Was it going to be a Supreme Court case? Was it going to be an appellate court? It turns out it was the Court of International Trade that brought us to this moment. Leonard Leo did not author a decision from this court. Why is he mad at Leonard Leo? Leonard Leo has long been a key figure in the Federalist Society and was very much a part of the first Trump administration, working closely with the administration to put forward judges. For a long time, Trump looked at his judicial nominations and waved them like a flag to the American conservative public saying, look what I did. But the more the American conservative public started loving Trump as Trump, versus Trump as what policy wins he could deliver, the less he started waving these other ideological flags, and the more it became all about him. And so this meant that this marriage was going to be temporary almost from the beginning, unless FedSoc capitulated. And if you know anything about FedSoc and the people who belong to it, and the people who've come up as judges, I knew they weren't going to capitulate. It's a very different culture from political conservatism. Do you think Donald Trump didn't realize that? I don't think he realized that at all. He's had this entire history politically of when Republicans disagree with him, they either fall in line or they're steamrolled. And so it's so interesting to me that he actually began that Truth Social rant that lacerated Leonard Leo and the FedSoc with this question: What's going on? Why is this happening? And I totally understand his bafflement. Because all of the political people had surrendered, or almost all of them. And so when he turns around and these judges and justices just keep ruling against him, you can understand why he would take that as, 'What's going on here? I don't get this. I don't understand this. I've been assured that these were good judges.' And so that's where you get to that real tension. Do you think this rift with the Federalist Society will affect how he appoints judges going forward? The short answer to that question is yes. The longer answer to that question is heck yes. A lot of people were worried about this because they were thinking, Okay, Trump 1.0: He has General Mattis as his secretary of defense. Trump 2.0: He has Pete Hegseth. You can do this all day long. The Trump 1.0 early nominations — sound, serious, establishment conservatives. Trump 2.0 — often MAGA crazies. The question was, 'Is this same pattern going to establish itself in Trump 2.0 on judges?' And then he appointed to the Third Circuit Emil Bove, this DOJ enforcer of his who was responsible for the effort to dismiss the Eric Adams case. He's nominated him for the Third Circuit, and a lot of people are now saying, 'Oh, now that's your harbinger right there.'
Hamilton Spectator
17 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Disorder breaks out at New Jersey immigration detention center
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — Protesters outside a New Jersey federal immigration detention center locked arms and pushed against barricades as vehicles passed through gates, inmates inside relayed word that meals had been delayed, and Newark's mayor cited reports of a possible uprising and escape as disorder broke out at the facility. Much is still unclear about what unfolded at the Delaney Hall facility in Newark, where Immigrations and Customs Enforcement opened a 1,000-bed facility this year as part of President Donald Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. Photos and video from outside the facility Thursday show protesters pushing against the gates amid word that detainees inside were upset about delayed meals. Amy Torres, executive director of New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, said some officers sprayed pepper spray and tackled and dragged protesters away from the facility. She said some protesters had minor injuries, but no one was hit by the vehicles. An attorney for someone detained at the facility told told that people inside became violent after meals were delayed. 'It's about the food, and some of the detainees were getting aggressive and it turned violent,' attorney Mustafa Cetin said. 'Based on what he told me it was an outer wall, not very strong, and they were able to push it down.' Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, a Democrat who's been critical of Trump's immigration crackdown, early Friday called for an end to this 'chaos and not allow this operation to continue unchecked.' 'We are concerned about reports of what has transpired at Delaney Hall this evening, ranging from withholding food and poor treatment, to uprising and escaped detainees,' he said. It's unclear whether there have been any escapes. Messages seeking comment were left with ICE, the Department of Homeland Security and local police. Delaney Hall has been the cite of clashes this year between Democratic officials who say the facility needs more oversight and the administration and those who run the facility. Baraka was arrested May 9 , handcuffed and charged with trespassing. The charge was later dropped and Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver was later charged with assaulting federal officers stemming from a skirmish that happened outside the facility. She has denied the charges said she was doing her job as a lawmaker conducting oversight. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Peters offers optimistic outlook for Michigan Dems in 2026 Senate Race
U.S. Sen. Gary Peters (D-Bloomfield Twp.) at the Mackinac Policy Conference, May 30, 2024 | Anna Liz Nichols Following the conclusion of his term in 2027, U.S. Sen. Gary Peters (D-Bloomfield Township) said he plans to remain active in public policy. Earlier this year, Peters, who has served in the U.S. Senate since 2015, announced he would not seek reelection in 2026, to the shock of many. While sitting down with the Michigan Advance at last month's Mackinac Policy Conference, Peters said his post-Washington plans are still up in the air, but stressed that he's not retiring. 'I'll have a lot more control over my life when I'm not in the Senate, because it gives me a lot more flexibility to do a variety of things. But I'm going to stay active,' Peters said. With a year and a half left in the Senate, Peters said he remains focused on the Great Lakes, specifically on securing funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and additional appropriations for the U.S. National Guard's Great Lakes Oil Spill Center of Expertise in Sault Ste. Marie, which he helped establish. Alongside serving in the U.S. Senate, Peters also chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2021 through 2025, with U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) taking over the role for the 2026 campaign cycle. While Peter's decision not to run for reelection created uncertainty for Democrats' pathway back to a majority in the Senate, Peters said he's confident his party will retain the seat. 'Actually, that was part of my decision, because I want to make sure that the seat continues to be Democratic,' he said, pointing to two key factors that he said give the Democrats good odds. First, 2026 will be a good year to be a Democrat, Peters said, with the party out of power typically performing better during midterm elections. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'You have that historical precedent. Plus just the increased chaos we're seeing out of the Trump administration will mean that people are going to be voting Democratic, and next year, I think you're going to see that similar to what we saw in the last Trump administration,' Peters said, referencing the 2018 mid-term election where Democrats were able to take control of the U.S. House of Representatives. In another benefit, Democrats also have a deep bench of candidates, Peters said, noting that while others may declare for candidacy, the four Democratic candidates that have already jumped into the race 'are all very talented people.' The Democratic slate is currently made up of U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Birmingham), state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-Royal Oak), former Michigan House Speaker Joe Tate (D-Detroit) and former Wayne County Health Director Abdul El-Sayed. Former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-White Lake) is currently the only Republican candidate, however reports say U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Zeeland) is also weighing a run, though he has yet to make a formal announcement. That said, Democrats can't take anything for granted as Michigan is set to be a top battleground state, Peters said. 'The challenge for a race – Senate race in particular – when you have a primary is that you don't get your nominee till fairly late into August. And this race, it'll go from zero to 100 miles an hour within hours of the election,' Peters said. However, the 2024 election illustrated a clear divide in the Democratic Party between its moderate members and the more progressive wing, best illustrated by the party's split over Israel and Gaza. When looking for a pathway forward, Peters said Democrats need to remain focused on economic issues like affordable health care, job opportunities and voters' ability to save for and live a dignified retirement. 'All those issues are the most powerful. And you should always be focused on those. And that's not going to change,' Peters said. When you think about the previous presidential election – where former Vice President Kamala Harris lost to Trump by just over 80,000 votes – a presidential loss would typically bring a Senate election loss with it, Peters said. However, that didn't happen in Michigan. 'We won here in Michigan. And if you look at Elissa Slotkin's campaign, it was focused on those bread and butter economic issues. We won Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, and Nevada and Arizona and all of those Senate candidates, that's what they focused on. They outperformed the top of the ticket and they won,' Peters said. Democrats still have to work to excite their base and cannot ignore them, but those economic issues are just as important to Democratic voters as they are to independents, Peters said. As President Donald Trump works to radically reshape the federal government, congressional Democrats are tasked with both resisting the president and the Republican majority, and delivering results for their constituents. While bringing home results for constituents is difficult, the Democratic minority has to use its position to call out Republicans' actions and paint a contrast in the minds of voters, Peters said, emphasizing elections are all about contrast. Trump has violated pretty much every major norm of democracy, alongside several laws, Peters said, and while the judicial system has repeatedly been a check on the president, Democrats need to be aggressive in calling that out. 'I think we definitely have to be extremely aggressive in calling out just the blatant corruption we're seeing from the Trump administration,' Peters said, pointing to his decision to accept a $400 million jet as a gift from Qatar as well as his meeting with investors in his cryptocurrency business. 'We can't normalize that in any way, not just for the short term of getting rid of President Trump, but we can't normalize it for future administrations as well. The United States needs to be the place where corruption is never tolerated,' Peters said. However, Democrats still need to walk and chew gum by retaining their focus on the economic issues, Peters said. 'I think those issues too are going to play out as we look at tariffs, which will increase costs. When people start paying more for the everyday goods that they have, they're going to realize that Donald Trump's promise that he was going to lower inflation on day one is not the case,' Peters said. He also pointed to Republican's tax and spending bill, warning the plan would increase the nation's deficit by trillions of dollars, prompting higher interest rates. 'So you pay more for your car, you're going to pay more for your mortgage, your credit card, all those costs as a result of what I believe is completely irresponsible fiscal policy from the Republicans right now,' Peters said. As some Democrats have called on their officials to do more to resist the president, arguing they could do more to be a thorn in Trump's side, Peters said Democratic lawmakers are using the tools they have. While they've been able to use procedures to delay votes on legislation, those efforts are only delays, Peters said. 'We currently live, and I hope we always live, in a democracy and that means the majority rules in a democracy, yep. And if, if the majority have the votes, you can't stop it,' Peters said, noting that Republicans were in a similar position during the first half of former President Joe Biden's term. This is where elections have consequences, Peters said, prompting Democrats to put their energy into next year's election. Given the current political circumstances, Peters predicts Democrats will take back control of the U.S. House in 2026. The chamber is currently split 220-212, with three open seats. 'When you take back the House, then the dynamic changes dramatically in Washington. And Donald Trump, we'll be able to stop him, because he won't be able to pass things through the House,' Peters said. While retaking the Senate would prove more challenging, it's not something Democrats can write off, Peters said. The chamber is currently split 53-45 with two independents Senators, Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) and Angus King (D-Maine), caucusing with Democrats. While he understands the frustration among activists, Peters reiterated Democrats' limited options. 'You can slow down the majority, but eventually majority wins,' he said.
