Tax Bill about to Pass (actually matters)

[wankerness]

Let's all take a look at something that will actually negatively affect all of us that aren't rich. The tax bill is going to pass at the end of this week unless a few senators suddenly grow a conscience. Those that voted against the health bills are all on board here (one cause it opens up drilling in the national park in Alaska, hilariously). This thing not only raises taxes on anyone making less than 50,000, but it makes steps towards criminalizing abortion, adds in the aforementioned drilling in Alaska, cuts taxes massively on the rich, vastly increases expenses for grad students, and massively increases the national debt (vastly more over time, so the ignorant won't be able to follow cause and effect and vote against those who passed it). The real pain kicks in at 2027, so whoever's in charge then will catch most of the flack. Clever.

Here's a good summary of it. Yes, this particular article is from a "biased" source. No, Fox news isn't covering jack about this since it's massively unpopular with EVERYONE and thus wouldn't have any spot on that channel as it makes their own guys look bad.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Some choice excerpts:

Some of this re-engineering is straight out of the traditional Republican playbook. Corporate taxes, along with those on wealthy Americans, would be slashed on the presumption that when people in penthouses get relief, the benefits flow down to basement tenements.

Some measures are barely connected to the realm of taxation, such as the lifting of a 1954 ban on political activism by churches and the conferring of a new legal right for fetuses in the House bill — both on the wish list of the evangelical right.
...
With a potentially far-reaching dimension, elements in both the House and Senate bills could constrain the ability of states and local governments to levy their own taxes, pressuring them to limit spending on health care, education, public transportation and social services. In their longstanding battle to shrink government, Republicans have found in the tax bill a vehicle to broaden the fight beyond Washington.

The result is a behemoth piece of legislation that could widen American economic inequality while diminishing the power of local communities to marshal relief for vulnerable people — especially in high-tax states like California and New York, which, not coincidentally, tend to vote Democratic.
...
Many view the legislation not as a product of genuine deliberation, but as a transfer of wealth to corporations and affluent individuals — both generous purveyors of campaign contributions. By 2027, people making $40,000 to $50,000 would pay a combined $5.3 billion more in taxes, while the group earning $1 million or more would get a $5.8 billion cut, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office.

...
In a recent University of Chicago survey of 38 prominent economists across the ideological spectrum, only one said the proposed tax cuts would yield substantial economic growth. Unanimously, the economists said the tax cuts would add to the long-term federal debt burden, now estimated at more than $20 trillion.
...
The meat of the package is a permanent lowering of the corporate tax rate, to 20 percent from 35 percent, which business leaders have long wanted. Proponents assert that this would prompt multinational companies to expand operations in the United States.
...
The House bill includes provisions that would end the deductibility of tuition waivers for graduate students and repeal the deduction for interest paid on student loans. Both chambers’ bills would tax investment earnings from university endowments.

The endowment tax, in particular, threatens the ability of low-income students to pursue college and graduate studies, said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Proceeds from endowments subsidize students from lower-income families, while allowing students across the board to graduate with less debt.

“When the time of reckoning comes to fix huge deficits, social safety-net programs will be first on the chopping block,” Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, said.

This is calamitous and makes me really worried for where my parents are going to be, considering they'll be retired at that point and probably in retirement homes. I don't have any illusions about reaching the 1,000,000 per year income bracket by then, like I think many of the handful of rubes who support this bill do. Bleh.

Carry on!

 

[bostjan]

Talk to your representatives about this. I'm in Vermont, so the people representing me are already decided against it, but it won't matter because of all of those states where people are more diverse, politically, who have elected republican congressmen.

This sort of tax structure was tested out in Kansas. It has failed horribly there. This bill has the potential to ruin the USA, economically, and I don't think that's hyperbole. What scant debate there has been about this has boiled down to democrats pointing out the reasons why it's bad, and the republicans saying it doesn't matter because it's passing anyway. Honestly, though, I think the republicans are correct; I don't think there is a way to stop this from happening.

 

[MFB]

What scant debate there has been about this has boiled down to democrats pointing out the reasons why it's bad, and the republicans saying it doesn't matter because it's passing anyway. Honestly, though, I think the republicans are correct; I don't think there is a way to stop this from happening.

Yup, Republican victory lap

 

[wankerness]

One thing that looks like a long shot is that there's some loophole where if they try to cram in certain items that have nothing to do with taxes (in particular, the oil drilling), they have to get 60 votes. If that is the case, I think they can probably easily just slice that off and pass it anyway. Scuzzy, but oh well, that would be a tiny victory.

 

[Drew]

I literally can't keep up with this bill. So, a lot has happened since wankerness's last post - the CBO released their macro effect study and estiumates that the effects of growth will generate $1 trillion less than the bill claims. Then the Senate parliamentarian determined that Corker's trigger provision to increase taxes if revenue targets weren't hit doesn't comply with reconciliation rules, so that's out.

The GOP is frantically trying to patch together a bill that will get to 50 votes, and McConnell is preparing to bring this to a vote, so he seems to think he's got a chance... But I'll believe it when I see it. Same thing happened with the ACA, though McCain appears to be a committed yes note so unless he's trolling McConnell he won't be the surprise no.

 

[thraxil]

But think of the poor private jet owners. They really need this tax cut. It's only fair to make the freeloaders with student loans and mortgages start paying their share to help them out.

(https://www.snopes.com/gop-tax-plan-include-tax-cut-private-jet-owners/)

 

[Explorer]

Is it true that Republicans, in their haste to pass this bill, accidentally nullified all corporate tax deductions?

 

[vansinn]

I do not specifically follow this taxation debate in the US, but just would like to add that we're seemingly seeing concerted efforts internationally on reducing taxation on the rich on behalf of the less fortunate.

Here in Denmark, a limited number of month ago, a related set of mechanisms were tried.
The numbers were presented as percentages, making it look like lower incomers would get a substantial tax reduction, while high incomers would get a - percentage-wise - rather insignificant tax reduction.

However, when looking at the raw numbers, that is, what the tax easings, when based on actual money on the bottom line, would create, high incomers would stand to have significantly more available, while, say, a nurse, would wind up with round about 1/6th of that (IIR the numbers correctly).

Now, this [Danish] scheme differs from the referred US model, as it actually would result in tax saving for most everyone, though quite small for most. As such, it was a scheme intended to disproportionally favor the rich.

It didn't pass, but just now it has been suggested to ease company taxation, claiming that this would benefit everyone - likely because it could be argued that such tax easing would generate more production and jobs.
Now, this actually could be true; however, it'll depend on obtainable global growth rates, which I do not see climbing too much in a foreseeable future, so again, it looks to me like another attempt on blessing the rich.

I don't mean to specifically enter this discussion on US taxation, jut air some internationalization comments

 

[Drew]

Good Bloomberg piece this morning:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...raising-spending-warning-after-tax-bill-costs

Pertinent passage:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised Maine Republican Susan Collins that in exchange for her vote on the tax overhaul, he would put bipartisan health legislation on a must-pass bill before the end of the year. She said she’s spoken to President Donald Trump three times, as well as to GOP Senate leaders and been given assurances that an Obamacare-fix proposed by Republican Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Democrat Patty Murray of Washington will become law by Dec. 31.

“It’s a very clear commitment,” Collins said. “We have a solid commitment from the White House, so I feel confident” it will be pushed though Congress “by the end of the month.”
Including this legislation on a spending bill is a non-starter for many House Republicans. Many of them said Tuesday they would under almost no circumstances vote for a continuing resolution that includes Murray-Alexander.

Strong Opposition
“There’s not much compromise in there from a House standpoint -- none of us voted in favor of Obamacare, so supporting it or sustaining it is not exactly our objective,” said Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican who is chairman of an appropriations subcommittee. “I would have a very hard time voting for it. I think our leadership knows that.”

Ryan of Wisconsin previously opposed the Alexander-Murray bill, but on Tuesday said he’s having “continued discussions” with members of both parties.

Leaders also committed to Collins they will push to prevent automatic spending cuts to Medicare and other programs by waiving a budget rule, known as Paygo, which also require Democratic votes.

Other domestic programs, including health insurance for low-income children, could also be included on a must-pass spending bill.

Meanwhile, Democrats, along with some Republicans such as Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona and Representative Carlos Curbelo of Florida, are also insisting on passing legislation to give legal status for undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.

Trump may be doing a victory lap, but unless Alexander-Murray and some sort of DACA extension is included in a continuing resolution to keep the government open in the next 24 hours, then both Collins and Flake should probably be downgraded from "yes" to "maybe" votes when it comes to the final vote to send this to Trump's desk for a signature, and with a 51-49 vote, they've currently got a margin of only one.

I still am of the mindset that this is more likely than not to get signed into law, but I think that it's a LOT less certain than most commentators are saying.

 

[lelandbowman3]

Currently hit some issues pointed out by some left-side opposition, having to do a re-vote when it gets finalized.

 

[Drew]

It cleared the Senate, and the house will be a formality. So, the "Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018" is going to become law.

Two observations:
1) Say what you will about the (9 month long process involving lengthy debate, expert testimony, and a long and involved amendment process where the Democrats initially were successful in engaging the GOP before they decided a few months in that it was in their best political interest to present a united front against) ACA... The Republican Party is about to pass the first major rework of the American tax code in 28 years, a bill they only introduced 6 weeks ago, locked their Democratic colleagues entirely out of the drafting and revising process, rushed through so quickly that they accidentally set corporate AMT equal to the corporate rate, is passing with the unwieldy name above because the committee version of the bill was drafted so quickly that they didn't realize it violated Senate procedural rules in a number of areas, including the provision changing its name, and passed on party lines. The majority of the voting public, something like 60%, believes this bill mostly benefits corporations over individual tax payers, and even under the most generous assumptions, the middle class will see take-home pay increase by about the 1-2 percentage points lower their marginal rates will be, despite Republican promises that this will be the biggest tax cut for the middle class ever. The GOP is coming out of this looking both dishonest and incompetent, at a time where they're already far less popular than the Democratic party.

2) McConnell is in a bind here. He basically promised Collins the world to get her support, but the House has indicated they have no interest in waving pay-go medicare cuts or taking up the Alexander-Murray bill. He'll have a narrow 51-vote majority come January, and if he's seen as making promises he can't keep to one Senator, he'll have way less leverage the next time around. I really don't see what he does from here, if he can't strong-arm the House into delivering for Collins.

Currently hit some issues pointed out by some left-side opposition, having to do a re-vote when it gets finalized.

I mean, the provision changing the name falling afoul of the Byrd rule for not relating to revenue... The one silver lining here as a liberal making good money in a high tax state is that that's just fucking hilarious.

 

[Unleash The Fury]

If i get laid off on Jan 1. for 6 months and i DONT have to pay a $950 fine at the end of the year for not having health insurance?.....thats a huge pro that i can see!

 

[narad]

If i get laid off on Jan 1. for 6 months and i DONT have to pay a $950 fine at the end of the year for not having health insurance?.....thats a huge pro that i can see!

If you get laid off on Jan 1st and on Feb 1st find out you have cancer, that would not be a huge pro for you. And continuing your trend of quoting incorrect numbers, the 2018 fee would likely be the same as 2017, i.e., $695.

 

[Unleash The Fury]

If you get laid off on Jan 1st and on Feb 1st find out you have cancer, that would not be a huge pro for you. And continuing your trend of quoting incorrect numbers, the 2018 fee would likely be the same as 2017, i.e., $695.

Your right. If i got cancer on feb1 that would be not be a huge pro for me...................and technically you cant say my numbers are quoted incorrectly, then in the same sentence tell me what theyre "likely to be". And even if it were 695, are you seriously trying to justify that as a good thing?

 

[narad]

That would not be a pro for anyone..........................and technically you cant say my numbers are quoted incorrectly, then in the same sentence tell me what theyre "likely to be". And even if it were 695, are you seriously trying to justify that as a good thing?

Well I can, because your number was unfounded. Most recent sources state the plan was to continue 2018 at 2017 rates. In the same way it would be wrong to say, "i DONT have to pay the 1.3 million dollar penalty for not having insurance" -- you're pulling that number out of your imagination/asshole (*possibly same place).

It's not great that people have to pay a penalty for not having insurance, but this is the only way we're going to be able to move toward a more effective national healthcare policy.

 

[Unleash The Fury]

Well I can, because your number was unfounded. Most recent sources state the plan was to continue 2018 at 2017 rates. In the same way it would be wrong to say, "i DONT have to pay the 1.3 million dollar penalty for not having insurance" -- you're pulling that number out of your imagination/asshole (*possibly same place).

It's not great that people have to pay a penalty for not having insurance, but this is the only way we're going to be able to move toward a more effective national healthcare policy.

1. I thought it was supposed to go up to 950, i didnt pull that number out of my ass.

2. Oh ok. Well I dont think a national healthcare policy is the way to go personally. I dont want a small group of men sitting at a round table dictating how healthcare is going to work for every single person in the entire country. Thats way well and beyond the scope of the function of the federal government.

 

[narad]

2. Oh ok. Well I dont think a national healthcare policy is the way to go personally. I dont want a small group of men sitting at a round table dictating how healthcare is going to work for every single person in the entire country. Thats way well and beyond the scope of the function of the federal government.

Works well in other countries who have far higher general satisfaction with their healthcare services. Like I don't really care, as I don't hang around the US long enough to deal with the system, but it's clearly comparatively defunct against the healthcare systems I do use.

 

[StevenC]

1. I thought it was supposed to go up to 950, i didnt pull that number out of my ass.

2. Oh ok. Well I dont think a national healthcare policy is the way to go personally. I dont want a small group of men sitting at a round table dictating how healthcare is going to work for every single person in the entire country. Thats way well and beyond the scope of the function of the federal government.

1. If you're going to engage in political conversations, it's worth engaging in research and fact checking.

2. narad ninja'd me

 

[Unleash The Fury]

1. If you're going to engage in political conversations, it's worth engaging in research and fact checking.

2. narad ninja'd me

Gimme a D! gimme an I! gimme a C!gimme a K!

Lol oh hey nice of you to chime in SteveC! Im joking here.

 

[Unleash The Fury]

sorry double post