Personally I don't feel this is a political topic or exercise. I think its the 1% trying NOT to have to pay any more (and hopfully less) that they are use to paying..
As for the long term effect on the middle class? Only TIME will tell... But remember this. Taxes are never LOWERED, only "moved around" OR (as in this case,) "put off.." However, somewhere, and some how, the piper needs to be paid. Despite all the noise in the market, the money to cover the "changes" now in place, HAS to come from somewhere, and ANY windfall from other sources will QUICKLY be claimed by overzelous state and government agencies; and ANYTHING that "goes up" (any kind of taxes, prices at the register, etc...etc..) NEVER comes back down.
Lets' face it, we have "kicked the ball" of more taxes and individual responsibilities to our children and grandchildren.

The Republican tax reform bill didn’t just cut or simplify taxes — it also made them fairer.

First, it set lower rates for middle-class taxpayers. But by limiting the deduction for state and local taxes to just $10,000 — far more than most people pay — the bill also made sure that the wealthy pay their fair share.

This change is part of the reason the Republican tax reform bill actually made the tax code more progressive than it had been previously, according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

This change has another salutary effect. It prevents states and localities from exploiting other states’ federal taxpayers in order to keep taxes down for their own wealthiest residents — usually people earning well over $200,000 per year.

It is not uncommon in high-tax states, such as New Jersey, for officials to argue that state and local income-tax hikes don’t matter so much, because residents can deduct the additional payments on their federal taxes, with big savings at much higher marginal tax rates.

The new limit set on this deduction has had a very interesting effect on Democratic politicians. They are usually the first to shriek about tax cuts for the wealthy. But now that the federal tax code will no longer shield their own states’ wealthy residents from the high taxes they have imposed, these Democrat have suddenly become the preeminent champions of the nation’s wealthiest 1 percent.

New Jersey's Phil Murphy is one of the Democratic governors who scrambled to protect the rich from paying their fair share of federal taxes. His idea for c***ting Uncle Sam was a law allowing residents to write off most of their high property taxes as “charitable deductions.”

Murphy wasn’t alone in cooking up such an idea: Governors Andrew Cuomo of New York and Dan Malloy of Connecticut, both Democrats, signed laws creating similar tax-evasion schemes in their respective states. And quite a few other Democratic states, including California, considered but never enacted such dubious ideas.


It’s just as well, because last week, the IRS made clear that such schemes won’t fly. It issued a new rule to clarify that tax payments are tax payments, no matter what the states choose to call them. Although the details are complicated, the effect is to render any deduction resulting from such a scheme useless.

Not important.....i quoted it so all would know it wasn't my original work. The point is to put it out there ( it's accurate) so others could understand it and MAYBE be curious enough to research the tax changes.

Bottom line... Despite desperate attempts by the progessive left to paint them as all 1%, the simple fact is that our tax code is even MORE PROGRESSIVE with the latest cuts.

Couple of factoids...
>The top 10% paid an exorbitant percent ofv taxes before the cuts, and pay even more now.

> Only about 6% of taxpayers will pay more taxes with the cuts, almost exclusively those making more than $250,000 or so and living in high tax states (see Tax Policy Center)

Finally, we are discussing FEDERAL taxes....i couldn't give a fcuk about state taxes.