US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9391

On December 02 2017 09:22 Danglars wrote:

mozoku and who, again? Mmm?

The American left has a narrative of tax cuts for corporations and not for the middle class. That's why they bundled this together and called it a reform and sweeping cuts.

Sweden's got a gigantic welfare state and individual rate burden that's the highest in the OECD. The hair trim their party proposed is peanuts.

On December 02 2017 09:22 Danglars wrote:

mozoku and who, again? Mmm?

The American left has a narrative of tax cuts for corporations and not for the middle class. That's why they bundled this together and called it a reform and sweeping cuts.

Sweden's got a gigantic welfare state and individual rate burden that's the highest in the OECD. The hair trim their party proposed is peanuts.

On December 02 2017 09:27 Plansix wrote:
I hear Sweden is pretty dope. Good education, low crime. Healthcare that doesn't suck. Cold as fuck, but that isn't really a goverment thing. I guess its a welfare state because it gives a shit about its citizens welfare. Unlike the current Republicans and their supporters.

On December 02 2017 09:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:

Sweden has one of the highest standard of living in the world, much, much higher than USA. The difference is like comparing USA and India.

Also it's kind of disturbing how y'all on the Trumpians is ok with scribbling illegible writing on the margins of a bill as it is being voted on. I don't see how anybody on any ideological side is ok with this.

On December 02 2017 09:27 KwarK wrote:

Hey Danglars, are you aware that the deduction is actually decreasing for most families once you account for the exemption being removed?

On December 02 2017 09:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
This is actually in the bill they're voting on:



They couldn't even manage to avoid crossing words out. I'm sure the CBO have a handwriting analyst in hand to interpret this in the next hour though right?

On December 02 2017 09:38 Introvert wrote:


I have to look more but one thing you didn't account for was the collapsing of the tax brackets, which is supposed to reduce taxes on the majority of middle class payers, as well as the increase in the child credit. All these analysis say the same thing, a large majority of tax payers would receive a cut. I haven't had time to run the numbers myself. There are the foundation studies that have been linked and I think this NYT piece was posted a few days ago when it came out.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/28/upshot/what-the-tax-bill-would-look-like-for-25000-middle-class-families.html

A Joint Committee on Taxation analysis of the Senate GOP tax bill leaked late Wednesday.

The report found that in 2019, 8.1% of Americans would see their taxes increase by at least $100, while 61.7% would see a cut of at least $100.

In subsequent years, however, fewer people would see a tax cut — especially after changes to the individual brackets expire.

A new analysis of the Senate Republican tax bill found that while most people would see an initial tax cut under the plan, many would see their taxes increase over time without subsequent legislative adjustments.

The analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation, prepared on Monday and leaked late Wednesday, found that the GOP bill, named the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, would increase taxes for some Americans as soon as 2019. By 2027, according to the analysis, nearly all Americans would see an increase or no cut at all.

The primary reason most Americans would not see a tax cut in further-out years is that individual tax rates would change — adjustments to those brackets would last through 2025, while the corporate rate cut, to 20% from 35%, would be permanent.

That means that by 2027, 84.1% of Americans would see no change or an increase of at least $100 in their taxes compared with under current law, the analysis found.

Lower-income households would be hit harder in later years, according to the analysis — 88.4% of people making $40,000 to $50,000 a year would see no change or an increase in their taxes.

Meanwhile, of people with incomes over $1 million, only 39.9% would see no change or an increase in their taxes, while 60.1% would get a cut of more than $100.

The Senate Republican bill proposes to reverse the individual cuts to comply with Senate rules. Republicans have also argued that a future Congress will extend the cuts when they are set to expire.

In 2019:
61.7% of Americans would see a tax cut of $100 or more, 30.2% a change of less than $100, 8.1% an increase of at least $100.
71.7% of people with incomes of $40,000 to $50,000 would see a tax cut of more than $100, 20.5% little change, 7.7% an increase of more than $100.
83.7% of people with incomes of $100,000 to $200,000 would see a tax cut of more than $100, 1.9% little change, 14.3% an increase of more than $100.
80.4% of people with incomes of more than $1 million would see a cut of more than $100, 0.2% little change, 19.4% an increase of more than $100.
In 2023:
55.9% of Americans would see a cut, 30.9% little change, 13.1% an increase.
63.5% of people with incomes of $40,000 to $50,000 would see a cut, 24.2% little change, 12.3% an increase.
76.7% of people with incomes of $100,000 to $200,000 would see a cut, 2.5% little change, 20.8% an increase.
70.7% of people with incomes of more than $1 million would see a cut, 0.3% little change, 29% an increase.

On December 02 2017 09:45 KwarK wrote:

Increase in the CTC is what Rubio was pushing to fix the bill but he didn't get it in the way he wanted it as far as I know. It's discussed here.
https://ernietedeschi.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-child-tax-credit-ambiguity-in-gop.html?m=1

Basically a refundable tax credit is an unconditional payment to people from the government that just gets processed at tax time, it's nothing to do with taxes though. A non refundable tax credit reduces how much you owe. If you're poor then non refundable tax credits don't do much because you're not getting shit back anyway.

The bill is still mostly a black box of varying proposals though. We'll see if Rubio got his way.

On December 02 2017 09:48 Danglars wrote:



Business Insider
from WSJ-JCT leak

Basically, the majority get a net tax cut. Yes, that includes most of the middle class. Many of these are very small cuts.

The fiscal hawks/compliance make it expire and most everybody's taxes go up when that happens. That includes the middle class. If you put 2027 in the forecast when a lot of this expires, you're fucking over the middle class. Republicans are banking a lot for their renewal, and have some hope for that considering the treatment of the Bush temporary tax cuts. The expiry date is absolutely fair ground for criticism. Tilting this too much towards corporate tax reform is also fair ground for criticism ... I'd rather see that be a separate bill and do bigger promised reforms to individual tax rates now. But don't kid yourself: this is a tax cut for the majority of Americans across income brackets until expiry.

On December 02 2017 09:38 Introvert wrote:


I'd have to look more but one thing you didn't account for was the collapsing of the tax brackets, which is supposed to reduce taxes on the majority of middle class payers, as well as the increase in the child credit. All these analysis say the same thing, a large majority of tax payers would receive a cut. I haven't had time to run the numbers myself. There are the foundation studies that have been linked and I think this NYT piece was posted a few days ago when it came out.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/28/upshot/what-the-tax-bill-would-look-like-for-25000-middle-class-families.html

Edit: Just because some people are quite dense I would like to point out that I'd prefer a tax bill that cuts taxes for everyone, and doesn't create on scenarios. But alas spending apparently can't be touched so so much for that.

A couple of things should jump out right away. First, there are more dots on the right side of the chart than the left — more households would get a tax cut than a tax increase. (The chart represents the impact in 2018; the situation looks considerably different in 2027, after many provisions of the bill are set to expire.)

Nearly everyone who takes the standard deduction gets a tax cut in 2018

On December 02 2017 09:59 Danglars wrote:

That article was actually one of my launch pads assessing impact.


+ Show Spoiler +

Now, you might see these are small cuts for families. Interesting to note is the difference in tax burden changes between taking the standard deduction and taking the itemized deduction. You get these 61k married couples with 3kids spending 300$ less on their taxes right out of the gate. 57k married couple with 4 kids spending 400$ less, young married couple with 5 kids making 55.5k$ has $70 less. Hair trim right? Teensy tax cuts.

On December 02 2017 09:54 GreenHorizons wrote:


"A tax cut" is meaningless. Cutting people's taxes $1 is "a tax cut" but only rhetorically. I can't think of any sensible reason that someone making $2,000,000 needs a $10k tax cut or how that boosts the economy. The marginal utility of that money is practically nil for the millionaires and would be huge for people making much less.

It sounds good to say "everyone should get a tax cut" but there's no reasonable economic argument for millionaires (or especially billionaires) getting tax cuts in these conditions, especially an estate tax repeal.

On December 02 2017 09:59 Danglars wrote:

That article was actually one of my launch pads assessing impact.




Now, you might see these are small cuts for families. Interesting to note is the difference in tax burden changes between taking the standard deduction and taking the itemized deduction. You get these 61k married couples with 3kids spending 300$ less on their taxes right out of the gate. 57k married couple with 4 kids spending 400$ less, young married couple with 5 kids making 55.5k$ has $70 less. Hair trim right? Teensy tax cuts.

On December 02 2017 10:02 Danglars wrote:

It's meaningful if people are claiming taxes are going up on the middle class as a result of the bill, without the stipulation that the tax cut is slated to expire. Or trying to factor in all these health insurance subsidies they're going to miss out on because they've chosen not to buy health insurance because it isn't foisted upon them. I want to preserve my criticism for the tax bill on what it is (It does not have my support), by plainly examining falsehoods on what it isn't.