Charles Lane (no relation) makes the obvious point:
What the deduction does is enable higher-income states and localities to tax — and spend — more than they otherwise would, while shifting some of the cost to other states. It also encourages them to collect revenue in forms that are easier to deduct on federal returns.
Two states, California and New York, reaped almost 30 percent of the deduction’s value in 2009, the latest year for which I could find Internal Revenue Service data. Other states that benefit disproportionately include Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland.
I’m arguing against interest here, by the way. My taxes would go up. I assume, so would Charles’. And so would about 3/4ths of the Media elite’s, which is why you’re going to see a lot of people in print and broadcast journalism get the vapors over this. These folks are on the sweet side of a wealth transfer, after all.
…Which is something that they should be disclosing, mind you.