I’m all over the place and your sole defense is “but the state contributes more” on something that is entirely a household matter.

“But that “self serving” manner, as you call it, generally pays for better schoolsand other services, which produce a better educated population, which should - as the theory goes - make those states able to attract the companies that make those high paying jobs that you seem to be looking down your nose at possible”

“Married couples do pay the same rate as single taxpayers, except in the top bracket, where married couples are actually penalized. If you make $50,000, and your spouse makes $62,000, your combined income is $112,000, which puts the couple in the 24% marginal tax bracket, the same as if each taxpayer filed as single…

“And why does a state like Mississippi not have a glut of high-paying jobs?”

“People move to cities for opportunity. The more opportunity, the more people want to live there, and the higher cost of living.”

“So we’re just going to skip over the part where you attempted to cherry pick three states out of 13 that are net payers into the system with lower state tax burdens without mentioning the other 10, some of which also have the highest state tax burdens.”

“If my state is using my income tax to address needs in my state, the federal government doesn’t have to”

I’m not saying move out to some small town with a population of 100. I’m saying there are three or four metros in the US that are among the most expensive in the world and unless your skill set is one that is highly local to one of those metros you don’t have a professional justification for being there.

“I’d argue that most jobs don’t have regional requirements”

Texas, New Hampshire, and Wyoming are all net payers when it comes to the federal coffers. Know what else they have in common? Some of the smallest tax burdens in the US.

Completely unrelated.

The people complaining about affordability in these coastal areas aren’t the ones with the specialized jobs that have real regional requirements.

“Why shouldn’t they each get the benefit of paying the tax on their income, rather than being added together and bumped into a higher marginal tax bracket?”

“OK, but saying “Parity” really just restated my question.”

Shorting everyone else doesn’t mean they spend less. It means they spend nine dollars when they should be spending eleven.

And you want these same people in a tax payer funder national healthcare system...

Some of these comments make it really obvious who is still being claimed as a dependent.

Equality is dividing the bill 330 million ways.

A calculator maybe? Provided some organization called the IRS? Online possibly?

It didn’t eliminate SALT. It capped it.