Tax Bill

[Larry]

I have been fond, last few years, of quoting a bit of trivia:  

 

1). The last time a Republican President left office with a smaller deficit than he took over, the President was Eisenhower. 

 

2). The last time a Democrat President left office with a bigger deficit than he took over, the President was FDR. 

 

Anybody want to attempt to claim that those statements won't be true, eight years from now?  

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

 

[Burgold]

This may be the biggest money grab pretending to be policy of my life time. They're barely even pretending it will do any good for anyone other than themselves.

[HOF44]

Looks like with the 10K allowance for SALT plus the other changes to this bill I'll be coming out ahead personally now at least for awhile.  Still against it though.  It's gonna shoot up the cost of everything else.  I just bought a car while I could get a .9 rate, plus it was time.  A couple years into this and interest will probably be up.  Health care will go up.  It's going to put the squeeze on a lot of middle/low income people.  Lets hope the midterms change things.  

[DogofWar1]

Are they re-scoring this?  Like weren't they at 1.4B in the original Senate one and needed to stay under 1.5B?  And they threw in a bunch of goodies from the House one that presumably would increase the debt?

 

Or am I understanding something incorrectly?

[Burgold]

4 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

Looks like with the 10K allowance for SALT plus the other changes to this bill I'll be coming out ahead personally now at least for awhile.  Still against it though.  It's gonna shoot up the cost of everything else.  I just bought a car while I could get a .9 rate, plus it was time.  A couple years into this and interest will probably be up.  Health care will go up.  It's going to put the squeeze on a lot of middle/low income people.  Lets hope the midterms change things.  

Yep. Already we're seeing that in how they are proposing significant cuts to counterterrorism funding (slashing 565 m off the budget), infrastructure and rail (-13%), etc. Then, there's health care, education, environment, etc. 

 

It's not really all that exciting to me to gain a thousand hand in fist while losing a hundred thousand in services and prevention.

6 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Are they re-scoring this?  Like weren't they at 1.4B in the original Senate one and needed to stay under 1.5B?  And they threw in a bunch of goodies from the House one that presumably would increase the debt?

 

Or am I understanding something incorrectly?

I was thinking about that too. Mind you, I don't know that I'd trust the fuzzy math anyway. We all know the cost will be much higher than the estimates. It always is.

[HOF44]

3 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Yep. Already we're seeing that in how they are proposing significant cuts to counterterrorism funding (slashing 565 m off the budget), infrastructure and rail (-13%), etc. Then, there's health care, education, environment, etc. 

 

I personally think taxes should be rising in a non regressive way.  I wouldn't even **** if mine went up some as long as those making more than me went up more also.  This "cut" had me pissed off because at first I was paying more but people above me had drops.  Not the way to do it in my opinion.  

[NoCalMike]

33 minutes ago, Burgold said:

This may be the biggest money grab pretending to be policy of my life time. They're barely even pretending it will do any good for anyone other than themselves.

 

I've always said when it comes to tax policy I at least respect the folks more who admit they want to lower the taxes on the wealthiest as a matter of principle ie: "taxation is theft", over those who try to sell the same tax cuts as some kind of economic job-creating boon.  Both are wrong, but one group is at least being honest.

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, HOF44 said:

I personally think taxes should be rising in a non regressive way.  I wouldn't even **** if mine went up some as long as those making more than me went up more also.  This "cut" had me pissed off because at first I was paying more but people above me had drops.  Not the way to do it in my opinion.  

Yep. I think we all agree that tax reform is necessary and could be useful, but this isn't really reform. It's just a big payout to the donor class and corporations. Why they think a little extra tax money will spur companies to raise wages that are already making record profits and yearly beat their previous numbers seems to defy logic. Worse, it defies history.

 

There are so many things that they could have done to constructively simplify or rework our tax structures. Some of them, I wouldn't personally like, but could see the benefit. I don't see how this helps the country overall. I don't see how it makes us stronger in the future or the present really.

[LadySkinsFan]

What is good for We the People? 

 

Not this tax bill.

[PleaseBlitz]

I wonder if anyone that is opposed to the tax bill and who is in the public arena will be able to prosecute the case that, okay, you got your tax cuts for corporations and the very wealthy, and you said it would have X Y and Z positive impacts and increase growth from the current 3.3% to some amount in excess of that which is high enough to offset the unpaid-for $1.5 trillion in liabilities.   

 

Someone with a high profile needs to draw a line in the sand right now and say, okay, here are the benchmarks and here is what you are promising.  Your deadline is November 2020. 

[NoCalMike]

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I wonder if anyone that is opposed to the tax bill and who is in the public arena will be able to prosecute the case that, okay, you got your tax cuts for corporations and the very wealthy, and you said it would have X Y and Z positive impacts and increase growth from the current 3.3% to some amount in excess of that which is high enough to offset the unpaid-for $1.5 trillion in liabilities.   

 

Someone with a high profile needs to draw a line in the sand right now and say, okay, here are the benchmarks and here is what you are promising.  Your deadline is November 2020. 

 

It never works, because when the tax cuts fail to produce jobs and/or anything else we were told they would, it will always be blamed on something else "strangling regulations" "out of control spending" blah blah blah......I am just waiting for Trump to re-visit his "wages are too high" nonsense he touted in the past.

[Fergasun]

I think they paid for the additional items by only dropping the corporate tax rate up to 21%.  I remember this ticked off Rubio because he said that they claimed "we needed 20%" when he was pushing for more refundable portion of the child tax credit (he got some, but not all of what he asked for).

 

The optics on this are horrible, and when "the rich / job creators" don't create the jobs, there might be a completely different response than we had to the Bush tax cuts.... it's horrible that this has been done on a non-bipartisan basis.  I mean really ridiculous that they used reconciliation. 

 

Now "reconciliation" is going to be the new normal for legislating?  I'm sorry, but that is garbage. 

Also, "reconciliation" with 59 Senators --- opps!  Fact-checking myself... (was going to say that there's a difference in Obamacare reconcliation and this reconciliation).  Obamacare was passed with a 60-40 vote... so the GOP is going to new lengths to pass this.

 

Oh hey, "We need to give our donors a reason to keep voting for us" and "tax cuts for the wealthiest, and hikes/service cuts for the middle class." 

 

Unfortunately, most people don't pay attention enough... long enough... or hard enough.  Why is it so hard to have reasonable policy which clearly benefits the middle class? 

 

 

5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I wonder if anyone that is opposed to the tax bill and who is in the public arena will be able to prosecute the case that, okay, you got your tax cuts for corporations and the very wealthy, and you said it would have X Y and Z positive impacts and increase growth from the current 3.3% to some amount in excess of that which is high enough to offset the unpaid-for $1.5 trillion in liabilities.   

 

Someone with a high profile needs to draw a line in the sand right now and say, okay, here are the benchmarks and here is what you are promising.  Your deadline is November 2020. 

Sounds like job for Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden.... or even President Obama....

[NoCalMike]

15 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Yep. I think we all agree that tax reform is necessary and could be useful, but this isn't really reform. It's just a big payout to the donor class and corporations. Why they think a little extra tax money will spur companies to raise wages that are already making record profits and yearly beat their previous numbers seems to defy logic. Worse, it defies history.

 

There are so many things that they could have done to constructively simplify or rework our tax structures. Some of them, I wouldn't personally like, but could see the benefit. I don't see how this helps the country overall. I don't see how it makes us stronger in the future or the present really.

 

Exactly.  Regardless of one's personal philosophy on Taxes at the Macro level, everyone across the board agrees that Tax Reform is needed, however anytime the term is brought up, it is usually code for trickle down economics and ends up being the same policy as before.  What we really need is for taxes to go back to the way they were pre-Reagan.  Start with that, and then work on the reforms and/or tightening of the tax code.

[PleaseBlitz]

3 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

It never works, because when the tax cuts fail to produce jobs and/or anything else we were told they would, it will always be blamed on something else "strangling regulations" "out of control spending" blah blah blah......I am just waiting for Trump to re-visit his "wages are too high" nonsense he touted in the past.

 

Well sure, there will always be excuses.  That doesn't mean making the case is not worth doing.  Just swipe all the excuses aside.  "You said it would do X Y and Z, and it did not.  Those regulations and spending issues were in place prior to the tax bill and are in place after the tax bill.  The thing that changed is the tax bill, and yet your promises were all bull****."  

 

1 minute ago, Fergasun said:

 

 

Sounds like job for Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden.... or even President Obama....

 

Dear god, please not Bernie.  

[NoCalMike]

16 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Well sure, there will always be excuses.  That doesn't mean making the case is not worth doing.  Just swipe all the excuses aside.  "You said it would do X Y and Z, and it did not.  Those regulations and spending issues were in place prior to the tax bill and are in place after the tax bill.  The thing that changed is the tax bill, and yet your promises were all bull****."  

 

 

Dear god, please not Bernie.  

 

Shoot, if it was up to me, I'd go a step further.  If I was a (D) in Congress or the Senate right now, knowing the Tax Bill is going to pass regardless of not supporting it, I'd be going public and going on every media platform available to me stating that if the GOP were so confident this will create jobs and revenue and prosperity, then add something to the bill with a timetable and if it doesn't produce X, Y, or Z, then not only are the cuts rescinded, but then raised on the wealthiest/corporations/etc etc.

[PleaseBlitz]

14 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Shoot, if it was up to me, I'd go a step further.  If I was a (D) in Congress or the Senate right now, knowing the Tax Bill is going to pass regardless of not supporting it, I'd be going public and going on every media platform available to me stating that if the GOP were so confident this will create jobs and revenue and prosperity, then add something to the bill with a timetable and if it doesn't produce X, Y, or Z, then not only are the cuts rescinded, but then raised on the wealthiest/corporations/etc etc.

 

Sackless deficit hawk Bob Corker (R) suggested this, got nowhere, dropped it. I agree a Dem (or all of them) should make noise about this. I think it’s important to set concrete benchmarks now, or else Trump will claim victory if GDP growth goes up 0.5%, when it is already trending that way w/o the #taxscam

[NoCalMike]

18 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Sackless deficit hawk Bob Corker (R) suggested this, got nowhere, dropped it. I agree a Dem (or all of them) should make noise about this. I think it’s important to set concrete benchmarks now, or else Trump will claim victory if GDP growth goes up 0.5%, when it is already trending that way w/o the #taxscam

 

Yeah like Sarah Huckster says "How dare Obama take credit for the economic recovery......that was recovering on his way out of office......."  ummm what?

[thebluefood]

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/571754894/charts-see-how-much-of-gop-tax-cuts-will-go-to-the-middle-class

 

Quote

The numbers look bleaker a decade out for most American households. To help ensure their bill met the budget limits Republicans had set for themselves, lawmakers set many individual income tax changes to sunset after 2025 (they made cuts to corporate tax rates permanent, meanwhile).

 

For example, the bill changes tax rates across income brackets, increases the standard deduction, and increases the child tax credit — but only until the end of 2025.

 

As a result, the Tax Policy Center predicts that in 2027, the average tax cut would amount to $160, or just a 0.2 percent income bump for that average household.

 

This would mean a tiny tax bump for many lower- and middle-class households — the average $50,000 to $75,000-earning household would have a tax bill that's $30 higher than today. The average household earning more than $1 million would get a cut of more than $23,000.

 

Put another way, in 2018, households earning $1 million or more — or, 0.4 percent of all tax filers — would be getting 16.5 percent of the total benefit from the bill.

 

In 2027, households earning $1 million or more — 0.6 percent of all filers — would be getting 81.8 percent of the total benefit, even though their average tax break would shrink by about $26,000 over that 10-year period.

 

 

Quote

Oh, I say you been misled. You been had. You been took.

 

[Springfield]

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

 

It never works, because when the tax cuts fail to produce jobs and/or anything else we were told they would, it will always be blamed on something else "strangling regulations" "out of control spending" blah blah blah......I am just waiting for Trump to re-visit his "wages are too high" nonsense he touted in the past.

 

Its funny because that I believe that regulations produce jobs, not tax cuts.

[LD0506]

Any and all discussion is irrelevant, they are going to do this no matter who objects. They are obliged to reward those people that got * elected, the rich and Russians. The rest of you schmucks better sack up. You can always cheer yourself with the thought that when people start dying in droves, they'll find a way to monetize your carcass.

 

Everybody got their lube handy?

[twa]

10 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Its funny because that I believe that regulations produce jobs, not tax cuts.

 

regulations certainly do, compliance cost alone are billions....of course where that money would have went matters.

 

broken window fallacy might apply

 

 

[RichmondRedskin88]

This has got to be one of the most heartless actions by a group I’ve seen. Stealing healthcare and money from poor and middle class. Who needs the grinch when you got Republicans? Merry Christmas indeed.

[visionary]

 

 

 

[RichmondRedskin88]

He’ll be remembered as a lifelong pos