Jump to content
sho

Trump's Tax Plan

Recommended Posts

sho    104

We are beginning to see what it may look like.  Some interesting things, at least to me.

 

...

Quote

The framework plan calls for increasing the standard deduction to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for families, which essentially doubles the amount of personal income that is tax-free.

Congressional Republicans describe the change as creating a larger “zero tax bracket.” 

 

...

 

"It's clear from this plan that when it comes to tax reform, Republicans will always put the wealthy first,” said Massachusetts Rep. Richard Neal, the top Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. “After more than a year of work …. this tax plan would give big tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.”

Meanwhile, a battle is brewing among Republicans over a move to eliminate the deduction for state and local taxes, which is especially valuable to people in high-tax states such as New York, New Jersey and California. The plan retains existing tax benefits for college and retirement savings such as 401(k) contribution plans.

 

...

 

The estate tax -- which is paid by those with multimillion-inheritances -- would be eliminated, a boon for wealthy individuals who inherit businesses, investments and real estate.

 

Along way to go, and I'm guessing a lot of changes to come.  With healthcare changes on hold for a while because there's no way they'll get to 60 with anything anytime soon and Trump will try to kill ACA due to no actions by him.  This will be the next big agenda piece.   It'll be interesting to watch how this unfolds.

 

As a middle class family man, I'm tentatively in support the three things listed here.   Of course this is just the bullet points, once we get into the weeds of the bill, I may find more problems than things I like, but so far, I can actually say this seems OK.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/27/republicans-unveil-tax-plan-call-for-doubling-deduction-and-cutting-rates.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dbqgolfer    173

It looks to me that the Republicans have joined the Democrats and have even stopped pretending that deficits and a $20 Trillion debt are important issues to them......when our dollars become worthless, it's going to be a very big issue to all of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIGREDIOWAN    2,128

I'm not sure what to think really. If it effects my pocket book positively at home I guess I'm all for it, but I wonder what all the details behind the scenes are? Because that could end up hurting the country as a whole in the long run. Obviously we'll all need more information on this as this plan moves forward. It's really too early for me to say "Yes, I'm for this."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    8,064

I'm in a wait and see mode.  I have such little faith in the Republican party right now to be able to do anything worthy of their positions that I'm scared to get behind anything they propose without a lot more information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,300

From the LA Times:


 

Quote

 

But let’s examine a few specifics.

 

--The capital gains tax preference is preserved. As we’ve noted before, wealthy taxpayers have been willing to give up a lot of breaks, as long as the capital-grains preference remains in place. The top tax rate on ordinary income is 39.6% (reduced to 35% in the tax proposal); the top rate on capital gains is just over half that— 23.8%.


The Trump plan: Every bad tax idea, in one place

 

The preferential rate delivers an estimated $120 billion a year to taxpayers who are overwhelmingly members net merely of the 1%, but the 0.1%--they’re the recipients of 76% of the capital gains tax benefit. That’s because capital gains comprise much larger shares of the income of the wealthy than everyone else. Those with annual incomes of $1 million or more receive more than half their income from capital gains; working-class people earning $75,000 to $100,000 receive on average 75% of their income from wages.

 

There’s more to the capital gains break than merely the preferential rate. As Ed Kleinbard, the tax expert at USC, observes, it’s our only truly voluntary tax: Those with accumulated capital gains liabilities can choose when to pay them simply by deferring the sale of the capital asset, because that’s when they’re collected. Hold the asset long enough to bequeath to one’s heirs, and the tax is extinguished. No other U.S. tax encompasses such an enormous benefit.

 

--Repatriation of foreign corporate assets at a low rate. Big business has been pushing for this break for years, or since the last “one-time” repatriation amnesty in 2004. American multinationals hold an estimated $2.6 trillion of what Kleinbard calls “stateless income” offshore. They’ve resisted bringing the wealth back home because it would be taxed in the U.S. at standard corporate rates.


Why the rich are happy to give up the carried interest loophole: They get to keep a bigger loophole

 

The framework says foreign earnings held in forms other than cash will be subject to a lower rate, though it doesn’t say how low. In any event, the rationale, which is that corporations will use the money for investing in their future and for job growth, doesn’t hold water. As Steven M. Rosenthal of the Tax Policy Center observes, industry promised in 2004 that the repatriated profits would be used for job development and investment. For that they were gifted with a preferential 5.25% rate.

 

Instead, multinationals used the repatriated funds to pay dividends to shareholders and buy back their stock, actions that disproportionately benefit wealthy shareholders. In fact, the largest participants in the 2004 repatriation holiday, including Pfizer and IBM, cut jobs and research. “Once the holiday ended, the multinationals went right back to accumulating earnings off-shore, anticipating another tax holiday,” Rosenthal writes.

 

--Repeal of the estate tax. The estate tax is the perennial target of the most dishonest Republican spin in the whole tax code. Dubbed by its wealthy critics the “death tax,” this levy supposedly burdens family farms and businesses. During the Presidential campaign, Trump called the estate tax a burden on the “American worker.” Yet the estate tax affects only a few thousand people at most, all of them multimillionaires with an average nest egg of more than $30 million. Currently, the tax is set at 40% of estates, with an exemption worth $5.49 million per individual and $10.9 million per couple. Among those who would almost surely benefit from repeal: Ivanka, Eric, and Donald Trump Jr.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,488

IIRC, weren't many of you n favor of repealing the estate tax in earlier discussion about tax reform?


Also, one of the things I wasn't a fan of their early plan to scrap the alternative minimum tax. It's what makes sure the incredibly wealthy don't abuse deductions and loopholes so much that they wind up paying next to nothing. 

Guess what's still in their plan?

 

Quote

We can identify at least one taxpayer who will hugely benefit from the proposal: President Donald Trump. We still haven’t seen his tax returns, but thanks to leaked documents we know that at least at some point in the past, the only income tax he paid was the alternative minimum tax (the AMT). We also know that his businesses operate through “pass-through” vehicles (partnerships, LLCs and S corporations). A regular corporation pays tax on its income; shareholders in turn pay tax on the dividends they receive. In pass-through vehicles, by contrast, business income is taxed only in the hands of the owners of the business, rather than at the entity level.

 

And we know that Trump is very wealthy, and therefore in the ordinary course of events might be expected one day to leave behind a large estate, which, to the extent not left entirely to his wife at that time, would attract a substantial estate tax bill. 

 

What does the Republican proposal do in this case? It eliminates the AMT. It subjects income derived from pass-through businesses like Donald Trump’s empire to a special 25 percent tax rate (rather than 35 percent or 39.6 percent, the individual rate), because owners of these businesses are special, in some indeterminate way. And the proposal repeals the estate tax.

 

Here you see the real agenda at work. When it matters, the proposal has more than enough detail to signal to President Trump and the Republican Party’s coterie of oligarch financial backers that their personal taxes will be slashed, not by a few hundred or thousands of dollars, but by millions and millions. 

 

The 25 percent tax rate for pass-throughs is particularly galling, because it has no principle at all behind it, and will be the subject of widespread abuse, as taxpayers maneuver to squeeze their incomes into the pass-through business box. The proposal describes this as some sort of discounted rate for small business owners, but that is simply dishonest. It applies to all pass-through vehicles, including those owned by Trump and his counterparts.

 

We'll have to see what the final product ends up being. There's a good chance that it winds up saving many of us a chunk in taxes. But it will be at the expense of a gigantic tax cut for the richest people among us & huge losses of revenue for the government. I'm not sure that a functioning, funded government is really a priority for this administration.

 

People were not lying when they said he was going to use this as a huge tax cut for himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,488

Here's a rundown of what exactly is in the "plan." It's really just more of a framework.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Red Five    3,591

Here is a fair take on the plan I read last night.  It doesn't say the plan is totally horrendous, but there are some head scratchers in there.  And a lot left to be decided when details are released.

 

Sounds like the worst off will be single parents, married households with 2 or more kids, and people living in high state income tax states.

 

And $1.5M is the magic number to see if they need 51 or 60 votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoogs    6,367

Small-order changes to the status quo for certain brackets and situations should do little to mask the large-scale goals this policy is meant to achieve.

 

If you want to lavishly reduce tax burdens for the wealthy, you'll find a token bone to throw here and there and try to present that as the best thing ever. 

 

Remember what the goal is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIGREDIOWAN    2,128
1 hour ago, Red Five said:

Here is a fair take on the plan I read last night.  It doesn't say the plan is totally horrendous, but there are some head scratchers in there.  And a lot left to be decided when details are released.

 

Sounds like the worst off will be single parents, married households with 2 or more kids, and people living in high state income tax states.

 

And $1.5M is the magic number to see if they need 51 or 60 votes.

Awesome.......I'm thrilled to get screwed over more on my taxes. My wife and I already "make too much" and have slowly lost the tax deduction for having children over the years. What a joke.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,488

Ugly chart from the analysis of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center:

 


I'll be honest with you all: I really couldn't care less about the U.S. GDP at this point. I saw a study that said it correlates very little to healthcare salary bumps, & I don't have any investments to be concerned with. I'd much rather we create a better society for ourselves and future Americans to live in.

 

I figure by the time I get settled down and make a real income, I'll MAYBE wind up in that fourth quintile? Looks like I'd get about a 1% cut that essentially disappears within ten years.

 

Notice how all our tax cuts start extremely modest and become nothing as we go? Meanwhile those wealthy tax cuts are far more massive and far more permanent.

 

I heard a snippet of Trump selling this the other day in Indiana where he said "I'm doing something that's not easy & not very good for me... Believe me."

 

Vox:

 

Quote

In any case, TPC’s analysis is a strong indication that President Trump’s claim that the plan was designed "protect low-income and middle-income households, not the wealthy and well-connected" was wildly misleading, that Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is breaking his famous pledge to not enact an absolute tax cut for the wealthy, and that White House economic adviser Gary Cohn’s contention that “the wealthy are not getting a tax cut under our plan” and Mnuchin’s claim that the plan will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion were both straight-up lies.

 

So far multiple Trump admin officials and the man himself are being as staggeringly dishonest about their tax plan as they are any other matter. They're currently busy propping this thing up with glaring lies.

 

Don't believe him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,488

This is breathtakingly wrong, even if you're against the estate tax. Selling an estate tax repeal as some kind of populism for the working class is laughable.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    8,064
12 hours ago, dudeguyy said:

This is breathtakingly wrong, even if you're against the estate tax.

 

Correct.  I'm not a fan of the estate tax, But, convincing this audience that somehow it's good for them is baffling.  But....it works.  These truck drivers I'm sure left this event so pumped up because he "told it like it is".  They probably all wore their cute little red MAGA hats home and slept in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335
3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Correct.  I'm not a fan of the estate tax, But, convincing this audience that somehow it's good for them is baffling.  But....it works.  These truck drivers I'm sure left this event so pumped up because he "told it like it is".  They probably all wore their cute little red MAGA hats home and slept in them.

However, when I think of farmers who want to pass their farms on to family members or who sell it, doesn't the estate tax come into play?  So, this is where it might help the 'common man'.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/donald-trump-middle-class-tax/2017/10/11/id/819132/

 

According to this article  - the $4k middle class tax cut benefit is figured over 8 years and has a lot to do wt companies reinvesting in the USA and passing their tax breaks on to their workers in the form of higher wages.  Kind of a long, winding road to getting to that point.  Yet is shows a tax increase for those earning $50k to $150k - which is perhaps most of us live.

If my taxes go up after this - I'll  be so mad and work to defeat any Republican running in Okla who supported it.

 

Quotes:

 

n independent analysis found that the plan may actually raise taxes on nearly a third of middle-class families, criticism that is weighing on Trump’s plan. A study by the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which used details from previous Republican plans to fill in gaps in the president’s framework, found the Trump plan would raise taxes for almost 30 percent of filers making $50,000 to $150,000 per year.

The president pushed back in Harrisburg, arguing that the tax cuts for corporations that are a centerpiece of his plan ultimately would help middle-class families. Trump said as corporations get to keep more of their profits, they will use some of the added income to pay workers higher wages. That shift along with bringing offshore earnings back to the U.S. would translate into a $4,000 pay raise for an ordinary worker, Trump said.

“We can breathe new life into struggling industries and forgotten towns,” Trump said.

Economists disagree on just how much individuals benefit from corporate tax breaks, but even Trump’s own economic advisers have said that the $4,000 benefit would only materialize over eight years. On an annual basis, it’s closer to $500.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QMany    3,004
13 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

However, when I think of farmers who want to pass their farms on to family members or who sell it, doesn't the estate tax come into play?  So, this is where it might help the 'common man'.  

 

The first $5.49M is exempt, so it isn't coming into play for most. And if you are fortunate enough to inherit a farm/business valued over $5.49M, provisions allow you to spread the tax payments out over 15 years at low interest rates.

 

small-farm-tax_450_copy.png?itok=F9sn03A

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335

Thanks for the info Q.  Well sounds like the big tax breaks are going to the big, big guys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QMany    3,004
Just now, TGHusker said:

Well sounds like the big tax breaks are going to the big, big guys. 

 

Yes, that is the aim. But they are using this "small business/farm" ruse to try to fleece Americans. 

 

If someone wants to talk about raising the exemption slightly because of inflation or allowing deferred payments, I'm all ears for debate.

Do know, the exemption has raised from $650,000 in 2001. The estate tax raises revenues and puts a small dent in few families/individuals controlling immense amounts of wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335

Now there can be trickle down - large cuts to large corporations with the hope that they pass on to workers via higher wages (we all know large corporations always do the right thing- stop holding your breath.    :sarcasm)

 

Or there can be 'trickle up' - in which consumers are given larger tax breaks so that they spend money in our consumer focused economy. Consumers (think middle class) buying more and more products, driving higher demand for products and services, and thus creating jobs to fulfill that greater demand.  We are a consumer driven economy and not a savings driven economy.  So much of any tax break given to the middle class will be converted into the demand for 'stuff'.  The money won't be stored away in savings as we've seen corporations do after 2008 - in which corporations' cash on hand grew greatly but did not translate into corresponding investments that created new jobs.  

 

Trickle down can be a helpful thing but not if it isn't coupled with trickled up. Otherwise trickle down leads to fatter bank accounts by corporations.  There needs to be a corresponding demand for the goods and services corporations provide to draw that trickle down to the consumer's level.  Tax breaks for the consumer 'class' will provide that trickle up spark. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    8,064
14 minutes ago, QMany said:

 

The first $5.49M is exempt, so it isn't coming into play for most. And if you are fortunate enough to inherit a farm/business valued over $5.49M, provisions allow you to spread the tax payments out over 15 years at low interest rates.

 

small-farm-tax_450_copy.png?itok=F9sn03A

 

 

I have a really hard time believing that only 50 farms or businesses in the US are valued at over 5.49 million.  There are multiple non-public companies (not even counting farms) within the state of Nebraska that I would think are valued over that amount and Nebraska is a small state.  Then, you take states like Texas, California, New York....they have to have quite a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QMany    3,004
1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I have a really hard time believing that only 50 farms or businesses in the US are valued at over 5.49 million.  There are multiple non-public companies (not even counting farms) within the state of Nebraska that I would think are valued over that amount and Nebraska is a small state.  Then, you take states like Texas, California, New York....they have to have quite a few.

 

"[T]his year."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deedsker    333
1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Then that's a pretty misleading statistic.

 

 

 

Just rinse and repeat every year...

 

50 "small" farms a year out of 2,700,000 total estate events are effected which is a .00185% rate of all estates. Which means 1 in 54,000 estate events is causing a small farm issue described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiyoat Husker    1,508
13 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Then that's a pretty misleading statistic.

 

 

 

 

Agree.  They should be more transparent with that statistic.  It looks like they are saying "There are 2.7 million estates in the USA".

 

Really they are saying there are 2.7 million deaths each year, and of that, 0.2%  are subject to the estate tax.  Some of those "estates" might be zero real estate, just a collection of vinyl records and a cat-stained couch.

 

 The 1% is the more relevant number, and still makes the point without trying to be misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiyoat Husker    1,508

On a side note, that graphic above comes from CBPP, a liberal think-tank.  I'm not disagreeing that this tax policy helps high-income and hurts low-income Americans, but I severely dislike spin.  Think Tanks of all kinds are good at spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiyoat Husker    1,508

I'd like to see those numbers filtered by land-owners or by farm-owners.  Inheriting a 5 million dollar farm from your grandpa is not the same as inheriting 5 million dollars, unless you are just liquidating it.

 

i'd like to see an exemption for family farm/small businesses where the inheriting party simply continues running the business rather than liquidating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
funhusker    751
2 hours ago, Kiyoat Husker said:

 

Agree.  They should be more transparent with that statistic.  It looks like they are saying "There are 2.7 million estates in the USA".

 

Really they are saying there are 2.7 million deaths each year, and of that, 0.2%  are subject to the estate tax.  Some of those "estates" might be zero real estate, just a collection of vinyl records and a cat-stained couch.

 

 The 1% is the more relevant number, and still makes the point without trying to be misleading.

I don't get how this isn't straight forward.   Yes, it is essentially saying 2.7million deaths that passed on "something", that is what an "estate" is.  Whether it is a record collection or a 10000 acre ranch, it is an estate.  Whether it is worth $5 or $50,000,000, it is an estate.  Most estates, as shown in the graphic, are "minimal".  Especially after medical expenses, funerals, and other debts are paid off.

 

But I do really like your idea of creating exceptions for people who continue to operate the farms or businesses.  That is straight thinking and common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335

McCain might once again be the deciding factor in the passage of the President's tax bill.  He has been all over the place though out his career.   

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-finance-202/2017/10/12/the-finance-202-mccain-could-give-the-same-thumbs-down-to-a-tax-overhaul-as-he-did-to-health-care/59de982a30fb041a74e75cef/?utm_term=.213cc4f559da

quotes:

 

On tax policy itself, McCain has proved a moving target. He opposed the 2001 Bush tax cuts — one of only two Republicans to do so — citing what he called the bill’s lopsided benefits for the wealthy. “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief,” he said. Two years later, he was one of only three Republicans to vote against the next round of Bush cuts, again citing its skew toward the rich but also the deficit impact of another round of breaks as the country faced mounting war bills. 

 

 

More recently, McCain sounded more like his trustbusting political hero, Teddy Roosevelt, when he confronted Apple’s tax-dodging strategies. In a 2013 hearing, he joined with then-Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in criticizing chief executive Tim Cook. “U.S. corporations cannot continue to avoid paying their appropriate share in taxes,” McCain told the tech honcho. “Our military can't afford it. Our economy cannot endure it. And the American people will not tolerate it.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiyoat Husker    1,508

If this tax reform truly was about:

 

1. Simplifying the tax code

2. Removing most of the frequently abused tax loopholes

3. Balancing the Budget

 

Then I think that it would have bi-partisan support.

 

Instead, it is once-again a supply-side economics policy that primarily benefits the wealthy.  Its not going to create jobs.  It will only serve to consolidate corporate power, weaken the government, and increase the deficit.

 

Yay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deedsker    333
1 hour ago, QMany said:

 

The thresholds for brackets will be adjusted according to chained CPI, a slower-growing measure of inflation than normal CPI, which is used currently; this change raises revenue over time by gradually pushing more and more people into higher tax brackets.

 

Hey look, normal people getting screwed over time! Looks like ACA repeal all over again.

 

:throw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deedsker    333

Also, the little trick with the 12% tax bracket actual INCREASES taxes paid by individuals with no kids making between $20,000-35,750 and married couples with no children between $40,000-71,500. 

 

All other areas of W-2 income would see a tax decrease of some sort. GOP found a way to stick it to low income people again!

Edited by deedsker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDenver    1,795
8 minutes ago, deedsker said:

Also, the little trick with the 12% tax bracket actual INCREASES taxes paid by individuals with no kids making between $20,000-35,750 and married couples with no children between $40,000-71,500. 

 

All other areas of W-2 income would see a tax decrease of some sort. GOP found a way to stick it to low income people again!

That and the services that will be cut due to decreased tax revenue will almost certainly be ones the poor use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deedsker    333

Absolutely! This is just the straight up screw job they are doing.

 

 The whole goal long term is to undermine programs or restrict funding wholesale to defund government programs  that benefit those with low income or disabilities, but this isn’t even hidden. Not that I have seen it published anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,488
56 minutes ago, deedsker said:

Absolutely! This is just the straight up screw job they are doing.

 

 The whole goal long term is to undermine programs or restrict funding wholesale to defund government programs  that benefit those with low income or disabilities, but this isn’t even hidden. Not that I have seen it published anywhere.

 

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

I'm curious to see what types of spending reductions they do. Clearly with their deduction changes they don't mind giving the shaft to the working poor or people in high tax blue states. And I'm skeptical of corporations in general, so I certainly don't think they need the massive cut they're about to get.

 

I'd also note that they've kept the carried interest loopholes for pass-through companies, reduced the estate tax (en route to eliminating it completely in 6 years) & repealed the alternate minimum tax. Those all absolutely benefit the rich and rich alone. In a cynic's eyes, they're just free giveaways to Donald J. Trump himself. 

 

I'm not going to fight tax cuts outright. But if you're going to blow a $1.5T hole in the federal budget, I want to see how you're going to finance it. If they slash popular, necessary programs,  I hope they're held accountable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deedsker    333
5 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

I'm not going to fight tax cuts outright. But if you're going to blow a $1.5T hole in the federal budget, I want to see how you're going to finance it. If they slash popular, necessary programs,  I hope they're held accountable. 

 

Why not? There are protections the government provides that cost money. We need to fund them to keep them. So blowing a hole in the funding can and will strip protections. Responsible tax cuts are good, corporate cash grabs are crap. This just makes the rich richer and squeezes 90% of the population long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,488
9 minutes ago, deedsker said:

 

Why not? There are protections the government provides that cost money. We need to fund them to keep them. So blowing a hole in the funding can and will strip protections. Responsible tax cuts are good, corporate cash grabs are crap. This just makes the rich richer and squeezes 90% of the population long term.

 

I guess I should have more fight in me.  I just feel like I've accepted it as an inevitability at this point. It's just what Republicans do ever since Reagan. HW broke his pledge on taxes and has been the only single term president we've had in that time. I'm not saying there's a correlation there, but I'm absolutely sure it didn't help him with his core constituency. 

 

Grover Norquist and his stupid Taxpayer Protection Pledge have infested the GOP tax dogma. W promised his tax cuts were the key to growth and success. It never materialized, but he did manage to balloon the debt. I'm assuming we're heading down a similar road with the King of Debt here.

 

It just doesn't feel like there's anything we can do to stop it. I hope the Dems and any moderate Republican with a brain fight against it. Maybe they can at least force some modicum of responsibility about this.

 

But Donald Trump is president, and tax cuts are why a disproportionate number of GOP congresspeople are sent to Washington. They're literally the reason people like Paul Ryan exist, and he's one of the most powerful people in the entire party. Which is made even more incredible when you consider he's doing it all without a spine.

 

Looking at the people at the wheel in the party, and the wealthy string-pullers are going to dump millions and millions of dollars to get this deal across the finish line. They're easily going to recoup their losses anyway. 

 

To top it all off, I know my own Senators don't give a damn. Sasse is bought and paid for by the Kochs & Fischer is a rubber stamp. Do you think a public fight can accomplish anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deedsker    333
4 hours ago, dudeguyy said:

 

To top it all off, I know my own Senators don't give a damn. Sasse is bought and paid for by the Kochs & Fischer is a rubber stamp. Do you think a public fight can accomplish anything?

 

In Nebraska? No. 

 

I still I’ll call the two to constantly tell them they are a disappointment. There is just hope for other states that aren’t as radicalized and need balance to win favor. This proposal is ham fisted enough that it has all the potential to fail. I will encourage that failure anyway I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QMany    3,004

I implore you to read this entire thread.

 

Quote

Seth Hanlon is a senior fellow at American Progress, where he focuses on federal tax and budget policy.

Prior to rejoining American Progress, he served as special assistant to the president for economic policy at the White House National Economic Council, where he coordinated the Obama administration’s tax policy. He has also served as senior tax counsel for the House Budget Committee Democratic staff under former ranking member Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and as tax counsel for Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), a senior Finance Committee member, among other Capitol Hill roles. He was the Director of Fiscal Reform during a prior stint at American Progress and an associate attorney at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered.

Hanlon has testified before Congress, and his work has been cited in the Financial Times, The New York TimesThe Washington PostThe Atlantic, and other publications. He has been featured in CNBC, NPR, C-SPAN and other outlets to discuss tax issues.

Hanlon received his bachelor’s degree from Harvard University and his J.D. from Yale Law School.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    8,064
22 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Just curious but if this tax bill is passed, when would it take effect? I'm assuming 2018 income? 

I thought I read somewhere saying it would not be retroactive.


But, I don't know where I read that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×