How is it more populist that low tax states subsidize high tax states?
Its taxation without representation with extra steps. I don't get a vote on your spending but I need to give more to the feds because of something you wanted for yourself.
What if they paid high taxes in Europe and got all these services, why shouldn't you give extra to NATO and spend billions defending the European theater (resulting in pretty high taxes) and then Europeans can make fun of you for not having any services they have. (I started this as a hypothetical but realized that's just how it is.)
You have to know it is more complicated than that. Oregon is very much not one of the states that gets the most welfare from the feds vs what we pay. Just like almost every other measure I can find, Oregon is pretty much smack in the middle. The SALT change just screwed over individual taxpayers.
Also, the populist comment was aimed at the fact that the tax 'cuts' were built with an expiration date for the poors but permanent for the wealthy. That's pretty much the opposite of what a true populist would do.
How are you defining 'fair share' in any way that makes sense? It's not even remotely as simple as you're making it out to be. And it doesn't even matter in the end, the federal budget is only loosely correlated with how much people pay in taxes. But real people, normal people, got screwed by the change, even if you think it was totally okay to do it.
Oh well. It expires soon, right? I mean, the middle class part at least?
I’m confused at how that’s populist.