Not sure this is where I'm going to eventually settle, but first thoughts.
1. I've always agreed that to refer to tax reductions as "subsidies" is inappropriate. Deductions do not return money to me; they allow me to keep what I earn. But if you accept this, it means that this tax package doesn't "subsidize" the rich; it merely lets them keep more of what they earn. I'd hate to untangle all the business with various tax deductions and tax credits, but the federal government has just one way of taxation. It's why there's no penalty in the ACA, just a tax waiver, because SCOTUS saved Congress' collective butt. (Yeah, a bunch of (D) Congressfolk, many of them lawyers, got that wrong, and then a renowned Constitutional law expert signed the same Constitionally suspect law. Well, if this law is unconstitutional, perhaps SCOTUS will reinterpret it to bring it into conformity.)
2. I can easily buy the argument that money taken by the state ceases to be income and therefore is not taxable.
In which case there should be some equity in how the states deal with their citizens. My state has no sales tax, but high property tax. The law should be written so that state income tax is exempt at any amount, but property tax can only be included up to a total of $10k for SALT. In other words, $13k state income tax, $5k property tax, you deduct $13k. If you have $0 state income tax and $11k property tax, you deduct $10k.
3. I fear the idea that double taxation is the outcome of eliminating the "LT" part of "SALT". There's a logic to it, but the "you don't tax corporate revenue and dividends because it's double taxation" is not pertinent here. It would be double taxation at the same level of government, and I can see that this could be placed in an entirely different category.
Notice, however, an implication of saying "we cannot tax a revenue stream twice." We have state sales tax. Now, in Texas there is no state income tax, but when I was in NYS I paid tax on the transfer of money I'd already paid tax on. So, okay, let's say that's not the same kind of tax--after all, it's a transaction tax. But if I owned property, I'd be paying tax on stuff I bought with money that I'd paid tax on, not on the transaction. If I hold the money as cash, no tax; if I hold it as bullion; no tax; if I hold it as ground, it's taxed.
This would be the problem with any wealth tax: It's double taxation, at the same level of government, state income taxes for those with state property taxes, local income taxes for those with local income and property taxes.
4. I'm unclear that anything from the Civil War applies here. The federal income tax is licensed by a Constitutional amendment. (Sorry. Perhaps "sanctioned" or "permitted" is a better term. I go all generative-linguisticky when I go technical or formal. That or chemistry/physics.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
