$1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I suspect that after a huge pushback from special interests, blue state Republicans and the public, they will pass some sort of shell "tax reform" just to say they did something for the midterms.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

BLS already maintains COL figures by zip code, so it wouldn't be a heavy lift to incorporate this into the tax code and would promote individual choices for where people live.

Why should I, a person who lives where home prices are reasonable, subsidize excessive prices elsewhere? $500,000 is a luxury home where I live. Lakefront property or the like.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

CEO just confirmed that they will redomicile in the US.

#WINNING

[OSR stands with Israel]

I suspect that after a huge pushback from special interests, blue state Republicans and the public, they will pass some sort of shell "tax reform" just to say they did something for the midterms.

This tax plan cuts taxes on everyone making one million dollars or less so I dont see why there would be pushback by the public on this plan .

[OSR stands with Israel]

Also the standard deduction will double , so that will more than make up for removing the student loan deduction .

[Matty]

This bill doesn't look like some giant gift to the rich to me.

Highest bracket remains unchanged, people in large, expensive homes paying more, among other things.

Outside of estate tax repeal (which at end of day is not going to be repealed), I'm not seeing any egregious "trickle down economics", as our progressive forum-mates like to say.

[jaichind]

Overall I support this tax plan

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

This bill doesn't look like some giant gift to the rich to me.

Highest bracket remains unchanged, people in large, expensive homes paying more, among other things.

Outside of estate tax repeal (which at end of day is not going to be repealed), I'm not seeing any egregious "trickle down economics", as our progressive forum-mates like to say.

The highest tax bracket has been changed. Those making $400,000 to $999,000 get a cut to 35% from the 39.6% top bracket.

Ultimately, I am still inclined to oppose this since it increases the deficit and increases the bottom tax bracket from 10 percent to 12 percent (new standard deduction only partially compensates for it). That being said, if Graham's minimum wage increase ends up being part of the final product, I may be willing to support it.

[Matty]

This bill doesn't look like some giant gift to the rich to me.

Highest bracket remains unchanged, people in large, expensive homes paying more, among other things.

Outside of estate tax repeal (which at end of day is not going to be repealed), I'm not seeing any egregious "trickle down economics", as our progressive forum-mates like to say.

The highest tax bracket has been changed. Those making $400,000 to $999,000 get a cut to 35% from the 39.6% top bracket.

Ultimately, I am still inclined to oppose this since it increases the deficit and increases the bottom tax bracket from 10 percent to 12 percent (new standard deduction only partially compensates for it). That being said, if Graham's minimum wage increase ends up being part of the final product, I may be willing to support it.

The amount of people in the bottom cohort paying 0 in income taxes is going to rise a lot based on this plan, because of the doubling in standard deduction.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This bill doesn't look like some giant gift to the rich to me.

Highest bracket remains unchanged, people in large, expensive homes paying more, among other things.

Outside of estate tax repeal (which at end of day is not going to be repealed), I'm not seeing any egregious "trickle down economics", as our progressive forum-mates like to say.

The highest tax bracket has been changed. Those making $400,000 to $999,000 get a cut to 35% from the 39.6% top bracket.

Ultimately, I am still inclined to oppose this since it increases the deficit and increases the bottom tax bracket from 10 percent to 12 percent (new standard deduction only partially compensates for it). That being said, if Graham's minimum wage increase ends up being part of the final product, I may be willing to support it.

But the standard deduction doubles meaning that people who currently make between 12k-24k will have their tax rate drop from 10% to 0%.


For middle class families this would be a huge tax rate as their tax rate would drop from 25%(which is the current bracket for people who's taxable income is in between 37,950 - 91,900) all the way down to 12%.



 

[OSR stands with Israel]

Again 1.5 trillion over the next 10 years can easily be made up in spending cuts.

[SoLongAtlas]

Again 1.5 trillion over the next 10 years can easily be made up in spending cuts.

Which most of these Republicans won't do due to the assumption of growth as the fix. Some GOP members want actualized cuts but that is few and far between.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Again 1.5 trillion over the next 10 years can easily be made up in spending cuts.

Trusting politicians to cut spending at some point down the road is always a bad idea.

[SoLongAtlas]

Again 1.5 trillion over the next 10 years can easily be made up in spending cuts.

Trusting politicians to cut spending at some point down the road is always a bad idea.

^ Truth. It's like standing in the rain without an umbrella or jacket and expecting not to get wet.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Again 1.5 trillion over the next 10 years can easily be made up in spending cuts.

Trusting politicians to cut spending at some point down the road is always a bad idea.

then its not this tax plan what made the deficit larger, it was politicians who refused to cut spending.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Trump is live now at a WH presser on this and announced that Broadcom will move its HQ back to the US from Singapore. The CEO is standing right behind him (albeit a bit fidgety).

The HQ on its wiki says they are cohqd in San Jose. I am assuming this move will be a single HQ. They are inc out of Singapore, maybe moving inc back to the US.

Yes, they're moving their legal incorporation to Delaware:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Again 1.5 trillion over the next 10 years can easily be made up in spending cuts.

Trusting politicians to cut spending at some point down the road is always a bad idea.

then its not this tax plan what made the deficit larger, it was politicians who refused to cut spending.

Right, but if we're not going to cut spending, we are adding that $1.5 T to the deficit, which is a bad idea. It's probably better to just not create that $1.5 T hole in the first place.

[SoLongAtlas]

Again 1.5 trillion over the next 10 years can easily be made up in spending cuts.

Trusting politicians to cut spending at some point down the road is always a bad idea.

then its not this tax plan what made the deficit larger, it was politicians who refused to cut spending.

Right, but if we're not going to cut spending, we are adding that $1.5 T to the deficit, which is a bad idea. It's probably better to just not create that $1.5 T hole in the first place.

^ Agree with this. Which is what the GOP ideology was before the 1980s and what actual fiscal conservatism is, not the phony f.c. that is talked about today by this round of congress critters.

[GeorgiaModerate]

National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) opposes the tax bill in its current form, says it leaves too many small businesses out.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

BLS already maintains COL figures by zip code, so it wouldn't be a heavy lift to incorporate this into the tax code and would promote individual choices for where people live.

Why should I, a person who lives where home prices are reasonable, subsidize excessive prices elsewhere? $500,000 is a luxury home where I live. Lakefront property or the like.

This is certainly a reasonable critique. My issue is that there's already plenty of cross-subsidizing within both the tax code and federal spending generally. Most studies already show high state tax states like California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc sending more dollars to the federal government than they get back in federal spending (some contend that this isn't a fair comparison because it includes military spending and spending on old age programs, to which I would counter by saying it's still using one state's dollars to prop up another state's economy).

And the proposal in it's current form only exacerbates these kind of who-subsidizes-whom claims by curtailing deductions that benefit the type of voters who didn't vote for Donald Trump (student loan interest disproportionately benefits younger voters, SALT disproportionately benefits blue staters, etc) to pay for things that do benefit his voters and donors (estate tax repeal specifically, child tax credit, raising the standard deduction, etc). It also includes patently political ideas like axing the electric car credit and taxing University endowments.

Which really is the biggest issue. The '86 overhaul was so successful because it was a bipartisan lift. Businesses could plan for the code to be in place for the long haul because both parties' constituents benefited. A purely partisan overhaul leaves a lot of uncertainty that'll blunt the economic impact, because Dems could sweep in a trifecta in a few years and change the code and federal spending to tilt the benefits to their voters. And then the Code becomes just another uncertain political tool, which would be adversely impactful to the economy.

Plus the whole thing has to sunset after 10 years due to reconciliation, right?

Edit: to add to the point of this being a giveaway to Trump voters and/or red state, the casualty loss deduction for property damaged or destroyed by weather incidents was removed for all weather events, except hurricanes. .

Edit 2: Benefits relating to adoption were also curtailed, no doubt reflecting an ideological opposition to same sex couples adopting.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Don't like the implications on the deficit probably getting bigger but.....

do like the lower class tax cuts I would benefit from?

Guess I'm thinking more like the average voter on that 2nd one

[OSR stands with Israel]

Don't like the implications on the deficit probably getting bigger but.....

do like the lower class tax cuts I would benefit from?

Guess I'm thinking more like the average voter on that 2nd one

same , but I also feel this Tax Cut will really help the economy.

[Koharu]

the "fiscally responsible party" is wanting to slash taxes and drive up deficits in the middle of an economic expansion. What could possibly go wrong if a recession hits?

Maybe if Democrats stopped sucking W's cockle-doodle-doo they would start making the comparisons of Trump to Bush

These cuts are absolutely reprehensible. I appreciate Bush coming forward and speaking out against Trump; then again, I always liked him as a person even though I absolutely hate what his policies did to the economy. Because, yes, this tax cut bill is basically all of what threw us into recession dialed up even more.

same , but I also feel this Tax Cut will really help the economy.

I'm serious here: Can you please explain why you think this cut will help the economy?

We're currently already at some of the lowest unemployment numbers we've seen in ages. Even the U5 (includes discouraged workers/marginally attached workers) and the U6 (includes part-time folks) numbers are a lot lower than they've been in a long time, too. We're about on part with early 2007, and just a tiny bit worse than 2000. Here's a good chart with the relevant information.

So taking that into account, the economy can't really grow much more. Business, especially part-time places, are getting desperate. Unless we bring in more workers (which would require expanding immigration laws, not tightening them), there's not much more room for the economy to grow.

I just... I don't understand how this tax cut is supposed to help the economy grow when it's already doing extremely well. And that's while giving trickle-down economics the benefit of the doubt.


My biggest frustration with this whole bill is that we simply can't afford tax cuts, and the American people want to keep the benefits they have, on the whole. So this is just going to grow the deficit without any real plan on how to deal with it. I may be fairly liberal, but I've always been frustrated by the deficit (let's blame my College Republican days), and if there was one thing I agreed with the Republicans on, it was trying to get spending in order. But they've completely thrown off the disguise of being in favor of a more balanced budget and come out as supporting the ultra-rich with this plan. It's just absolutely disgusting.

[Frodo]

The real reason for these tax cuts is to drive up the deficit and our national debt, and make our interest payments on that debt so high that by the time Democrats regain power, it will cripple any attempt by them to pursue their agenda.  

Yes, they are that cynical.  The GOP knows they can't hold on to power for much longer, so why not poison the well?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

As usual, the GOP never fails to disappoint.