DEMOCRATS usually lament efforts by the rich to avoid paying taxes. Yet the bill President Donald Trump signed into law on December 22nd may spur Democratic-leaning states to concoct such schemes. The reform capped at $10,000 the deduction, from federally taxable income, of state and local taxes (the “SALT” deduction). As a result, those who pay large local levies are likely to pay more federal tax in 2018. The change is particularly bad for high-earners living in big houses in states like New York and California, which impose high taxes. These states—which tend to see the reform as Republicans shaking down their political opponents—may yet put up some resistance.

Just under one-in-three taxpayers made use of the SALT deduction in 2015. On average, they knocked about $12,500 off their federally taxable income, according to the Government Finance Officers Association—only a little above the new cap. Yet the deduction has been much more valuable than that to some. Those earning over $1m who took the SALT deduction used it to reduce their federally taxable income by about $275,000.

Individuals and states alike are thinking about how to circumvent the new cap. In late December, huge queues formed at tax offices in places such as Fairfax County, Virginia—the third-richest county in America—as residents sought to prepay their property taxes for 2018. They hoped to deduct the early payments on their federal tax returns for 2017, before the cap came into force. But the IRS mostly scuppered these hopes when, on December 27th, it said that only taxes that had been “assessed” before the end of 2017 would be deductible. Those prepaying estimates of their 2018 taxes will be out of luck.

In any case, this avoidance strategy would only have worked for one year. Some, like Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York, hope to find a longer term dodge. One idea is to let taxpayers make charitable contributions to state coffers, in exchange for a one-for-one reduction in their state tax bills. Because charitable contributions remain deductible without limit, this would circumvent the cap.

It would also invite legal challenges. Taxpayers are not meant to receive benefits in exchange for their deductible contributions. Remarkably, there is some legal uncertainty over whether credits towards state taxes count. Charity typically already confers tax benefits at a state level, but federal authorities do not see this as invalidating the federal deduction. Some hope, optimistically, that the courts would take this logic to its extreme, and allow even a complete tax credit for contributions made to the state itself.

Another idea is that states could raise a higher proportion of their revenues from payroll taxes on employers. Such levies, which are invisible to workers, remain fully deductible for firms. The main drawback of this plan is that firms would probably want to respond by cutting wages. In theory, workers should not mind, if their state income taxes fall commensurately. In practice, they would probably object.

Some fear that if neither of these strategies works, high-earners may take a more rudimentary route to tax avoidance: relocation. This worry is probably overblown. A study in 2016 of the geographic mobility of workers earning more than $1m from 1999 to 2011 found very little migration in response to tax rates. This probably helps explain why state tax rates vary so much in the first place. Historically, states have not structured their tax systems to maximise the SALT deduction, notes Jared Walczak of the Tax Foundation, a right-leaning think-tank. For example, taxpayers must choose between deducting their income taxes and deducting their sales taxes. Yet rather than specialising in one or the other, most states levy both.

Unless Democrats come to power and restore the SALT deduction, rich people in Democratic states will probably have to learn to live with higher taxes. But expect some grumbling in the meantime.