Biden infrastructure/tax increase megathread

[If my soul was made of stone]

https://twitter.com/RepJoshG/status/1461704253551087621
Red wave incoming! His like will avoid the blame, though.

Given the chance, I would gladly castrate this man.

In a sane alignment, Gottheimer would be perceived the way we perceive Sam Brownback, or Norman Tebbit.

When Brownback was running for re-election in 2014 with his abysmal approval ratings, it was the suburbs in Johnson and Sedgwick Counties that helped him limp across the line. Makes you think, huh?

KKKobach is a creature of East Kansas suburbia himself, of course, although to their credit his neighbors eventually wised up to what a repellent specimen he was.

He began his political career in Overland Park, one of the most nondescript dead-end white sprawl-hells in this country, fittingly enough. The only person I've ever known from there went to a for-profit college, and that says all I need to know about it. We'd probably be hearing from them about SALT too if Kansas had higher taxes.

Romney won it by fifteen points according to DRA; Biden won it by twelve.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Rs say they are not participating in raising the Debt Ceiling due to BBB


https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/us-treasury-could-run-cash-000246372.html


Manchin abd Sinema are gonna have the final say so on BBB
Enjoy your short term victory D's Rs aren't gonna raise the Debt Ceiling

Manchin and Sinema are not going to let the country go into default.

I have told him this a 1000 times, yet he still seems to honestly believe that Manchin and Sinema are not going to just sit back and let the country go into default.

Not even Mitch McConnell himself believes that and that was the main reason why he passed the first debt ceiling increase because he thought Manchin and Sinema would break the filibuster in order to avoid a global Depression

McConnell even spoke with Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema before he offered to help the Democrats pass the first debt ceiling increases back in October. He clearly was not convinced that they would be willing to just let the world fall into a global economic apocalypse

Manchin and Simema are playing games with the Filibuster too they had every chance to get rid of it on VR and they chose not to, without a  ban Gerrymandering Districts, now WI, TX , NC, and OH have R Gerrymandering Districts thanks to no VR Reform

That's why pbower2A is quiet there aren't any Nut maps even in AZ, Biden Approvals are low, and pbower2A Nut maps begin in AZ, since no response from pbower2A.

PBOWER2A predicted HEGAR along with Landslide Lyndon. To win. In 2020

[Hope For A New Era]

https://twitter.com/RepJoshG/status/1461704253551087621

ok

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lega_Nord

[S019]

https://twitter.com/RepJoshG/status/1461704253551087621

ok

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lega_Nord

Not exactly, the SALT deduction is not at all comparable to Lega Nord's policies. Lega Nord ran on Padanian nationalism for like forever because Northern Italy, especially places like Milan and the region of Lombardia, in general, has a lot of Italy's wealth, this would've left poor Southern Italy likely impoverished, while they don't run on Padanian nationalism anymore, the idea is still the same, lots of more money to the North and less to places like Sicilia and Calabria. The SALT deduction does not seek to destroy West Virginia or anything, it's just a minor compensation to ensure that high tax states get back from the government what they put in. This comparison between Lega and SALT supporters is just annoying and not really based in reality. When they want to defund places that are not the Northeast and support Northeast nationalism, then we can talk.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

https://twitter.com/RepJoshG/status/1461704253551087621

ok

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lega_Nord

This presupposes a different way of understanding relations and exchanges between countries. If every human being possesses an inalienable dignity, if all people are my brothers and sisters, and if the world truly belongs to everyone, then it matters little whether my neighbour was born in my country or elsewhere. My own country also shares responsibility for his or her development, although it can fulfil that responsibility in a variety of ways. It can offer a generous welcome to those in urgent need, or work to improve living conditions in their native lands by refusing to exploit those countries or to drain them of natural resources, backing corrupt systems that hinder the dignified development of their peoples. What applies to nations is true also for different regions within each country, since there too great inequalities often exist. At times, the inability to recognize equal human dignity leads the more developed regions in some countries to think that they can jettison the “dead weight” of poorer regions and so increase their level of consumption.

[S019]

I don’t see the House SALT bit surviving Tester/Bennett/Sanders in the Senate guys.

It will survive to some degree, it's yet to be seen what degree that is, but I suspect this is why the House passed a cap with $80,000, that leaves a lot of wiggle room, bringing that down to $40,000 or $30,000 is still a massive win over the status quo, Gottheimer and co. played a very shrewd hand, it's hard to see them walking away with nothing.

[Former President tack50]

https://twitter.com/RepJoshG/status/1461704253551087621

ok

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lega_Nord

Not exactly, the SALT deduction is not at all comparable to Lega Nord's policies. Lega Nord ran on Padanian nationalism for like forever because Northern Italy, especially places like Milan and the region of Lombardia, in general, has a lot of Italy's wealth, this would've left poor Southern Italy likely impoverished, while they don't run on Padanian nationalism anymore, the idea is still the same, lots of more money to the North and less to places like Sicilia and Calabria. The SALT deduction does not seek to destroy West Virginia or anything, it's just a minor compensation to ensure that high tax states get back from the government what they put in. This comparison between Lega and SALT supporters is just annoying and not really based in reality. When they want to defund places that are not the Northeast and support Northeast nationalism, then we can talk.

Have high tax states tried, idk, lowering taxes? And if they don't like the bad effects of lowering taxes (less money) well too bad?

To me the SALT deduction seems like a way for certain states to have their cake and eat it too

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://twitter.com/RepJoshG/status/1461704253551087621

ok

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lega_Nord

Not exactly, the SALT deduction is not at all comparable to Lega Nord's policies. Lega Nord ran on Padanian nationalism for like forever because Northern Italy, especially places like Milan and the region of Lombardia, in general, has a lot of Italy's wealth, this would've left poor Southern Italy likely impoverished, while they don't run on Padanian nationalism anymore, the idea is still the same, lots of more money to the North and less to places like Sicilia and Calabria. The SALT deduction does not seek to destroy West Virginia or anything, it's just a minor compensation to ensure that high tax states get back from the government what they put in. This comparison between Lega and SALT supporters is just annoying and not really based in reality. When they want to defund places that are not the Northeast and support Northeast nationalism, then we can talk.

As an Italian, the comparison with Lega Nord is spot-on. The wealthy Northern regions demand what they call "fiscal federalism", which is basically a system like the US where state/regional taxes get to take precedence over federal/national taxes, such that more of the money generated in rich states/regions stays in those rich states/regions instead of going to the common pool, where some of it would be redistributed to poorer states/regions. This is exactly analogous. The SALT deduction doesn't hurt West Virginia in a very visible and obvious way, but ultimately it does mean proportionally less money goes to relatively poor states like WV, and this process does have a cumulative impact.

[politicallefty]

https://twitter.com/RepJoshG/status/1461704253551087621

ok

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lega_Nord

Not exactly, the SALT deduction is not at all comparable to Lega Nord's policies. Lega Nord ran on Padanian nationalism for like forever because Northern Italy, especially places like Milan and the region of Lombardia, in general, has a lot of Italy's wealth, this would've left poor Southern Italy likely impoverished, while they don't run on Padanian nationalism anymore, the idea is still the same, lots of more money to the North and less to places like Sicilia and Calabria. The SALT deduction does not seek to destroy West Virginia or anything, it's just a minor compensation to ensure that high tax states get back from the government what they put in. This comparison between Lega and SALT supporters is just annoying and not really based in reality. When they want to defund places that are not the Northeast and support Northeast nationalism, then we can talk.

Have high tax states tried, idk, lowering taxes? And if they don't like the bad effects of lowering taxes (less money) well too bad?

To me the SALT deduction seems like a way for certain states to have their cake and eat it too

With our federal system, that means the working class and below takes the brunt of the blow. The higher tax states generally have more generous welfare states and benefits for those that need it. The federal government only pays for so much. The so-called low-tax states have the highest uninsured rate. They also provide the worst unemployment benefits. I support the SALT deduction, but with an increase in the marginal rate to stick it to the states that don't want to support their people.

[Former President tack50]

https://twitter.com/RepJoshG/status/1461704253551087621

ok

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lega_Nord

Not exactly, the SALT deduction is not at all comparable to Lega Nord's policies. Lega Nord ran on Padanian nationalism for like forever because Northern Italy, especially places like Milan and the region of Lombardia, in general, has a lot of Italy's wealth, this would've left poor Southern Italy likely impoverished, while they don't run on Padanian nationalism anymore, the idea is still the same, lots of more money to the North and less to places like Sicilia and Calabria. The SALT deduction does not seek to destroy West Virginia or anything, it's just a minor compensation to ensure that high tax states get back from the government what they put in. This comparison between Lega and SALT supporters is just annoying and not really based in reality. When they want to defund places that are not the Northeast and support Northeast nationalism, then we can talk.

Have high tax states tried, idk, lowering taxes? And if they don't like the bad effects of lowering taxes (less money) well too bad?

To me the SALT deduction seems like a way for certain states to have their cake and eat it too

With our federal system, that means the working class and below takes the brunt of the blow. The higher tax states generally have more generous welfare states and benefits for those that need it. The federal government only pays for so much. The so-called low-tax states have the highest uninsured rate. They also provide the worst unemployment benefits. I support the SALT deduction, but with an increase in the marginal rate to stick it to the states that don't want to support their people.

Yes I know. This is not a bug, it's a feature.

States have to make a choice between having low taxes but also a terrible or non-existent welfare state or high taxes but an actually decent welfare state. I don't see why this dichotomy should be messed up with through a SALT deduction?

If the people of NJ want good services and high taxes that's their choice (and a choice I do support actually! I do consider myself left of centre after all). And if the people of say, Texas want low taxes and a non-existent welfare state that is also their choice; and they should not be expected to subsidize NJ's high taxes.

(ofc the alternative is to advocate for centralism and a single national tax rate, which is a legitimate policy option, but one that is not realistic in the US or any federal country for that matter)

[politicallefty]

Yes I know. This is not a bug, it's a feature.

States have to make a choice between having low taxes but also a terrible or non-existent welfare state or high taxes but an actually decent welfare state. I don't see why this dichotomy should be messed up with through a SALT deduction?

If the people of NJ want good services and high taxes that's their choice (and a choice I do support actually! I do consider myself left of centre after all). And if the people of say, Texas want low taxes and a non-existent welfare state that is also their choice; and they should not be expected to subsidize NJ's high taxes.

(ofc the alternative is to advocate for centralism and a single national tax rate, which is a legitimate policy option, but one that is not realistic in the US or any federal country for that matter)

I don't view a 20%+ uninsured rate as a feature of the federal system. It must be easy for someone like you in Western Europe. Most of this country has zero paid sick leave, zero paid sick days, and zero paid leave. The states that offer any part of that are not surprisingly the highest taxed states in the country. I support restoring the SALT deduction with a substantial increase in the top marginal income tax rates. I'd be willing to go quite high on marginal tax rates.

[junior chįmp]

Sad to see Jared Golden voting against Pre-K for his wife's son.

Wife's boyfriends son*

[jojoju1998]

Yes I know. This is not a bug, it's a feature.

States have to make a choice between having low taxes but also a terrible or non-existent welfare state or high taxes but an actually decent welfare state. I don't see why this dichotomy should be messed up with through a SALT deduction?

If the people of NJ want good services and high taxes that's their choice (and a choice I do support actually! I do consider myself left of centre after all). And if the people of say, Texas want low taxes and a non-existent welfare state that is also their choice; and they should not be expected to subsidize NJ's high taxes.

(ofc the alternative is to advocate for centralism and a single national tax rate, which is a legitimate policy option, but one that is not realistic in the US or any federal country for that matter)

I don't view a 20%+ uninsured rate as a feature of the federal system. It must be easy for someone like you in Western Europe. Most of this country has zero paid sick leave, zero paid sick days, and zero paid leave. The states that offer any part of that are not surprisingly the highest taxed states in the country. I support restoring the SALT deduction with a substantial increase in the top marginal income tax rates. I'd be willing to go quite high on marginal tax rates.

Ehh. It’s a variable.

Many corporations offer paid sick leave, paternal/maternity leave.

Many companies do not offer sick leave  and instead offer Paid time off which combines sick leave and vacation.

And smaller companies just offer straight vacation without paid sick leave. But this is why many smaller companies want the Federal Government to fund paid family leave, so that they can compete better with the larger corporations that do offer sick and maternity leave. Because workers are more attracted to companies with better benefits like maternal and sick leave.

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1462058146264862724

[Former President tack50]

Yes I know. This is not a bug, it's a feature.

States have to make a choice between having low taxes but also a terrible or non-existent welfare state or high taxes but an actually decent welfare state. I don't see why this dichotomy should be messed up with through a SALT deduction?

If the people of NJ want good services and high taxes that's their choice (and a choice I do support actually! I do consider myself left of centre after all). And if the people of say, Texas want low taxes and a non-existent welfare state that is also their choice; and they should not be expected to subsidize NJ's high taxes.

(ofc the alternative is to advocate for centralism and a single national tax rate, which is a legitimate policy option, but one that is not realistic in the US or any federal country for that matter)

I don't view a 20%+ uninsured rate as a feature of the federal system. It must be easy for someone like you in Western Europe. Most of this country has zero paid sick leave, zero paid sick days, and zero paid leave. The states that offer any part of that are not surprisingly the highest taxed states in the country. I support restoring the SALT deduction with a substantial increase in the top marginal income tax rates. I'd be willing to go quite high on marginal tax rates.

Well yes, I am in favour of paid sick leave and vacations and I do indeed think it's borderline barbaric not to have them .

Idk if it's the federal government or the states the ones that are in charge of regulating labour contracts. If it's the former, then I don't see why SALT matters and it's something trivial to pass through the federal Congress (if it was actually competent which I guess it isn't).

If it's the state governments, my point still stands that if Texans want lower taxes in exchange for no paid leave, that's their choice. Not one I support, but elections have consequences.

[jojoju1998]

Yes I know. This is not a bug, it's a feature.

States have to make a choice between having low taxes but also a terrible or non-existent welfare state or high taxes but an actually decent welfare state. I don't see why this dichotomy should be messed up with through a SALT deduction?

If the people of NJ want good services and high taxes that's their choice (and a choice I do support actually! I do consider myself left of centre after all). And if the people of say, Texas want low taxes and a non-existent welfare state that is also their choice; and they should not be expected to subsidize NJ's high taxes.

(ofc the alternative is to advocate for centralism and a single national tax rate, which is a legitimate policy option, but one that is not realistic in the US or any federal country for that matter)

I don't view a 20%+ uninsured rate as a feature of the federal system. It must be easy for someone like you in Western Europe. Most of this country has zero paid sick leave, zero paid sick days, and zero paid leave. The states that offer any part of that are not surprisingly the highest taxed states in the country. I support restoring the SALT deduction with a substantial increase in the top marginal income tax rates. I'd be willing to go quite high on marginal tax rates.

Well yes, I am in favour of paid sick leave and vacations and I do indeed think it's borderline barbaric not to have them .

Idk if it's the federal government or the states the ones that are in charge of regulating labour contracts. If it's the former, then I don't see why SALT matters and it's something trivial to pass through the federal Congress (if it was actually competent which I guess it isn't).

If it's the state governments, my point still stands that if Texans want lower taxes in exchange for no paid leave, that's their choice. Not one I support, but elections have consequences.

Technically, It’s not as if the US doesn’t have it. It doesn’t Mandate it. Historically business mandates are seen as evil….

Nowadays, most large corporations like Disney, Wells Fargo offer Paid sick leave, Vacation, maternal leave to their employees with tech companies offering the most, Netflix gives a year off to new parents.


The smaller companies however do not have the resources to afford that which is why a national paid family leave program is so important, because it allows smaller companies to compete more better for talent, who might otherwise work for a company that offers these benefits.

[Ferguson97]

Removing the SALT cap is a very bad policy and we shouldn't do it, but it's also ridiculous to suggest that it's somehow going to hurt the Dems in 2022. Most people aren't even going to know about it unless they personally benefit from it, and in that case they'd like the Democrats more for it.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Removing the SALT cap is a very bad policy and we shouldn't do it, but it's also ridiculous to suggest that it's somehow going to hurt the Dems in 2022. Most people aren't even going to know about it unless they personally benefit from it, and in that case they'd like the Democrats more for it.

The VA/NJ etc showed that GOP is leading, because Left is less enthusiastic. Do you think, that the removal of SALT cap would increase on decrease enthusiasm of progressives all things being equal?

IMHO, one of the most straight-forward attacks from GOP will be SALT thing.

Left gave you paid leave, and look now at the inflation rate sounds pretty muh (especially if inflation is not that high in 2022).
Left gave tax cuts for super rich donors (SALT) and look at the inflation now sounds fairly nice, IMHO.

[Person Man]

Removing the SALT cap is a very bad policy and we shouldn't do it, but it's also ridiculous to suggest that it's somehow going to hurt the Dems in 2022. Most people aren't even going to know about it unless they personally benefit from it, and in that case they'd like the Democrats more for it.

The VA/NJ etc showed that GOP is leading, because Left is less enthusiastic. Do you think, that the removal of SALT cap would increase on decrease enthusiasm of progressives all things being equal?

IMHO, one of the most straight-forward attacks from GOP will be SALT thing.

Left gave you paid leave, and look now at the inflation rate sounds pretty muh (especially if inflation is not that high in 2022).
Left gave tax cuts for super rich donors (SALT) and look at the inflation now sounds fairly nice, IMHO.

Having a SALT cap that’s higher than $10000 will help people who could use it. 80000 is probably way too high, though.

[Ferguson97]

The VA/NJ etc showed that GOP is leading, because Left is less enthusiastic.

VA/NJ was because of bleeding in the suburbs, where SALT cap removal would be very popular.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

The VA/NJ etc showed that GOP is leading, because Left is less enthusiastic.

VA/NJ was because of bleeding in the suburbs, where SALT cap removal would be very popular.

Source?


And how much of suburbs has $500,000 income?


VA:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-republicans-won-the-virginia-governors-race/

The simplest way, though, to describe how Youngkin won is basically that he just performed better across the board, and did so via both turnout and vote choice. At least according to the exit polls (which aren’t always reliable, so we’ll be looking at this question in other ways in the coming days), the electorate that turned out in 2021 was older and whiter than the one that turned out in 2020, and more friendly to Republicans in other ways. And Youngkin improved on Trump’s performance with a host of demographic groups across that electorate.

NJ:


Source Dave Leip

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

A bit off-topic, but more about turnout https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/resist-the-pundits-what-the-2021-elections-can-and-cant-tell-us-about-2022/




Thus, IMHO, a possible removal of SALT cap might decrease the enthusiasm among Bernie-style base. Certainly, it won't help Dems.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

https://itep.org/key-reform-in-build-back-better-act-would-close-loophole-used-by-the-rich-to-avoid-funding-healthcare/

TL;DR - the 0.9% Medicare surcharge on earned income and the 3.8% investment income tax surcharge that were introduced in the ACA in 2010 had a loophole, where business owners of S-corps and partnerships could avoid it by taking only up to $200k in salary per year but then claiming any income above that as "distributed profits".

The BBB Act closes this loophole so you have to pay the 3.8% investment income tax surcharge regardless of what form the income is paid out as

In 2016, the Joint Committee on Taxation noted that while only a quarter of a percent of partnerships reported receipts over $50 million, these companies reported 72 percent of aggregate partnership receipts. Likewise, less than half a percent of S corporations reported receipts over this threshold, but this small percentage collected 40 percent of all S corporation receipts. Current tax law allows the owners of these enormous businesses to unfairly avoid paying the same taxes as the rest of us.

Famously, the loophole was used by two former presidential candidates, John Edwards and Newt Gingrich. In 1999, John Edwards earned almost $27 million from his law firm, but only claimed $360,000 as wage income, allowing him to avoid nearly $600,000 in Medicare taxes. Similarly, in 2010 former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich earned $2.4 million through his consulting firms. He declared less than a fifth as wages, allowing him to avoid tens of thousands in Medicare taxes.

[7,052,770]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1462058146264862724

Most of those would be signature achievements in their own right. I'm so proud of America right now!

Biden delivers. Everyone who had faith in him on 11/3/2020 is vindicated!

[politicallefty]

Well yes, I am in favour of paid sick leave and vacations and I do indeed think it's borderline barbaric not to have them .

Idk if it's the federal government or the states the ones that are in charge of regulating labour contracts. If it's the former, then I don't see why SALT matters and it's something trivial to pass through the federal Congress (if it was actually competent which I guess it isn't).

If it's the state governments, my point still stands that if Texans want lower taxes in exchange for no paid leave, that's their choice. Not one I support, but elections have consequences.

Lower-tax red states want to have it both ways. They're also not surprisingly the states with lower minimum wages. Federal programs are based on wages established by the federal government, such as the FPL (federal poverty level). Elections do indeed have consequences. I would have no issue with raising the marginal rates to whatever they need to be to offset reinstating the SALT deduction. If that means a 45%+ top marginal rate, so be it.

We still have states that have refused the Medicaid expansion under the ACA, a refusal that was only allowed as a result of a Supreme Court decision. The federal government already subsidizes bad decisions by the red states. I have no issue reorienting the tax code to subsidize blue states that offer a more generous welfare state. That is exactly what Republicans were attacking with their removal of the SALT deduction. It's straight out of the Grover Norquist playbook of attempting to shrink government so they can try to drown/destroy it.