|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
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.
Funnily enough, like the other social democracies (or other countries) that are "so much better" than the US (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, UK, France, Netherlands, Germany), they've also all had less GDP growth than the US since 1990 (according to World Bank data).
But surely there's other factors at play right? After all, tax policy is only the sole determiner of a country's GDP growth when you're analyzing trickle down in the US. Right.
Before some fool accuses me of being a hypocrite, I'm not arguing this random factoid proves anything. I don't believe there's sufficient evidence in 2017 to make precise estimates of the average marginal effect of tax policy on growth. The point is merely that if you're willing to accept shitty statistical arguments, they can be made both ways.
|
I didn't realize %GDP growth was the only factor in considering how good a place is to live
Trumps lawyer just released a statement in comic sans
|
On December 02 2017 10:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 09:59 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 09:38 Introvert wrote:On December 02 2017 09:27 KwarK wrote:On December 02 2017 09:22 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 09:01 doomdonker wrote:
If this was a simple corporate rate tax cut like Danglers and mozoku are describing, a decent bill shouldn't be hard to pass. They wouldn't be hiding the bill, amending it a billion times behind closed doors and writing in the margins with pen. The Democratic Party, and actual left wing parties in general, don't mind the concept of corporate tax rate cuts. Shit, Sweden's center-left party just proposed a corporate tax cut.
It isn't really though, the Republicans flirted with the idea of RAISING the corporate tax over time so it would be more budget neutral. Its a straight up tax cut for the most wealthy while hiking taxes for actual middle class families (not individuals). 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. Hey Danglars, are you aware that the deduction is actually decreasing for most families once you account for the exemption being removed? 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.htmlEdit: 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. That article was actually one of my launch pads assessing impact. 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 ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/4DWW3Pq.png) 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. Besides some people making $60k seeing almost $2,000 larger tax bill (how would that be acceptable?) I'd love to see that all the way up to the billionaires. Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 10:02 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 09:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 02 2017 09:48 Danglars wrote: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.
Business Insiderfrom WSJ-JCT leakBasically, 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. "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. 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. Sounds like we're doing the "bad, but acceptable" dance again. Shouldn't be worrying about healthcare costs (regarding taxes) because we should have joined the rest of the developed world in making healthcare a right. I don't see a reason we couldn't just do the cuts scheduled for people making ~$250k or less and none of the cuts for people making more than that and it wouldn't be a better bill by every practical measure.
What dance? The one where you admit people claimed taxes would go up for the middle class and they actually won't until close to the expiry? Wait, that wouldn't be a dance that would be a boring repetition of fact. But you can still do that. I read the thread too and I thought it was being more criticized on the spin than the merits. We can "Wait, but health insurance impact" if we start at an honest playing field, which I think we still don't have.
|
On December 02 2017 10:01 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 09:59 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 09:38 Introvert wrote:On December 02 2017 09:27 KwarK wrote:On December 02 2017 09:22 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 09:01 doomdonker wrote:
If this was a simple corporate rate tax cut like Danglers and mozoku are describing, a decent bill shouldn't be hard to pass. They wouldn't be hiding the bill, amending it a billion times behind closed doors and writing in the margins with pen. The Democratic Party, and actual left wing parties in general, don't mind the concept of corporate tax rate cuts. Shit, Sweden's center-left party just proposed a corporate tax cut.
It isn't really though, the Republicans flirted with the idea of RAISING the corporate tax over time so it would be more budget neutral. Its a straight up tax cut for the most wealthy while hiking taxes for actual middle class families (not individuals). 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. Hey Danglars, are you aware that the deduction is actually decreasing for most families once you account for the exemption being removed? 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.htmlEdit: 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. That article was actually one of my launch pads assessing impact. 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 + 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. This goes back to what we were discussing earlier. All this political trouble while the party has done a host of weird things to avoid having the "average" family pay more while giving a large corporate overhaul. Go big or go home! If they are going to lose in 2018 like Democrats did in 2010, do something as important as Obamacare, if you can.
They get a campaign line about Democrats wanted to raise taxes on the middle class (after passage), and they get the donors off their back for delivering a tax cut. I saw their carrot. It's just so shortsighted to really fixing the tax system, and they simply won't have the majorities or political will to do actual tax reform part 2. Mickey mouse stuff, really.
|
On December 02 2017 10:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 10:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 02 2017 09:59 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 09:38 Introvert wrote:On December 02 2017 09:27 KwarK wrote:On December 02 2017 09:22 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 09:01 doomdonker wrote:
If this was a simple corporate rate tax cut like Danglers and mozoku are describing, a decent bill shouldn't be hard to pass. They wouldn't be hiding the bill, amending it a billion times behind closed doors and writing in the margins with pen. The Democratic Party, and actual left wing parties in general, don't mind the concept of corporate tax rate cuts. Shit, Sweden's center-left party just proposed a corporate tax cut.
It isn't really though, the Republicans flirted with the idea of RAISING the corporate tax over time so it would be more budget neutral. Its a straight up tax cut for the most wealthy while hiking taxes for actual middle class families (not individuals). 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. Hey Danglars, are you aware that the deduction is actually decreasing for most families once you account for the exemption being removed? 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.htmlEdit: 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. That article was actually one of my launch pads assessing impact. 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 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. Besides some people making $60k seeing almost $2,000 larger tax bill (how would that be acceptable?) I'd love to see that all the way up to the billionaires. On December 02 2017 10:02 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 09:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 02 2017 09:48 Danglars wrote: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.
Business Insiderfrom WSJ-JCT leakBasically, 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. "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. 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. Sounds like we're doing the "bad, but acceptable" dance again. Shouldn't be worrying about healthcare costs (regarding taxes) because we should have joined the rest of the developed world in making healthcare a right. I don't see a reason we couldn't just do the cuts scheduled for people making ~$250k or less and none of the cuts for people making more than that and it wouldn't be a better bill by every practical measure. What dance? The one where you admit people claimed taxes would go up for the middle class and they actually won't until close to the expiry? Wait, that wouldn't be a dance that would be a boring repetition of fact. But you can still do that. I read the thread too and I thought it was being more criticized on the spin than the merits. We can "Wait, but health insurance impact" if we start at an honest playing field, which I think we still don't have.
Talking about how you said Trump/Republicans blatantly lying about this tax bill helping their billionaire buddies was bad, but acceptable. Now the tax bill is bad, but acceptable. Presumably Democrats "lying" (they just put out an actual bill), would be bad but acceptable too in your view.
But it will raise taxes of some people making $40-80k long before the expiration.
My question to you is how would taking the same amount of money from the tax cuts and excluding people making $250,000+/yr hell we'll say $400,000 for couples, not be a better bill than giving someone making 2,000,000+/yr a $10,000 tax cut?
|
If the tax bill passes I'm just gonna start whistling past the graveyard of the US. I don't think it'll exist as a country within a decade if that bill is able to pass in its current form. Who wants to join a mad max style road gang with me? We can stock up on IPAs and lure in young white millenials.
|
On December 02 2017 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 10:17 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 10:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 02 2017 09:59 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 09:38 Introvert wrote:On December 02 2017 09:27 KwarK wrote:On December 02 2017 09:22 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 09:01 doomdonker wrote:
If this was a simple corporate rate tax cut like Danglers and mozoku are describing, a decent bill shouldn't be hard to pass. They wouldn't be hiding the bill, amending it a billion times behind closed doors and writing in the margins with pen. The Democratic Party, and actual left wing parties in general, don't mind the concept of corporate tax rate cuts. Shit, Sweden's center-left party just proposed a corporate tax cut.
It isn't really though, the Republicans flirted with the idea of RAISING the corporate tax over time so it would be more budget neutral. Its a straight up tax cut for the most wealthy while hiking taxes for actual middle class families (not individuals). 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. Hey Danglars, are you aware that the deduction is actually decreasing for most families once you account for the exemption being removed? 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.htmlEdit: 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. That article was actually one of my launch pads assessing impact. 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 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. Besides some people making $60k seeing almost $2,000 larger tax bill (how would that be acceptable?) I'd love to see that all the way up to the billionaires. On December 02 2017 10:02 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 09:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 02 2017 09:48 Danglars wrote: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.
Business Insiderfrom WSJ-JCT leakBasically, 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. "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. 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. Sounds like we're doing the "bad, but acceptable" dance again. Shouldn't be worrying about healthcare costs (regarding taxes) because we should have joined the rest of the developed world in making healthcare a right. I don't see a reason we couldn't just do the cuts scheduled for people making ~$250k or less and none of the cuts for people making more than that and it wouldn't be a better bill by every practical measure. What dance? The one where you admit people claimed taxes would go up for the middle class and they actually won't until close to the expiry? Wait, that wouldn't be a dance that would be a boring repetition of fact. But you can still do that. I read the thread too and I thought it was being more criticized on the spin than the merits. We can "Wait, but health insurance impact" if we start at an honest playing field, which I think we still don't have. My question to you is how would taking the same amount of money from the tax cuts and excluding people making $250,000+/yr hell we'll say $400,000 for couples, not be a better bill than giving someone making 2,000,000+/yr a $10,000 tax cut?
I actually answered that here yesterday.
|
On December 02 2017 10:38 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 02 2017 10:17 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 10:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 02 2017 09:59 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 09:38 Introvert wrote:On December 02 2017 09:27 KwarK wrote:On December 02 2017 09:22 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 09:01 doomdonker wrote:
If this was a simple corporate rate tax cut like Danglers and mozoku are describing, a decent bill shouldn't be hard to pass. They wouldn't be hiding the bill, amending it a billion times behind closed doors and writing in the margins with pen. The Democratic Party, and actual left wing parties in general, don't mind the concept of corporate tax rate cuts. Shit, Sweden's center-left party just proposed a corporate tax cut.
It isn't really though, the Republicans flirted with the idea of RAISING the corporate tax over time so it would be more budget neutral. Its a straight up tax cut for the most wealthy while hiking taxes for actual middle class families (not individuals). 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. Hey Danglars, are you aware that the deduction is actually decreasing for most families once you account for the exemption being removed? 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.htmlEdit: 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. That article was actually one of my launch pads assessing impact. 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 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. Besides some people making $60k seeing almost $2,000 larger tax bill (how would that be acceptable?) I'd love to see that all the way up to the billionaires. On December 02 2017 10:02 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 09:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 02 2017 09:48 Danglars wrote: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.
Business Insiderfrom WSJ-JCT leakBasically, 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. "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. 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. Sounds like we're doing the "bad, but acceptable" dance again. Shouldn't be worrying about healthcare costs (regarding taxes) because we should have joined the rest of the developed world in making healthcare a right. I don't see a reason we couldn't just do the cuts scheduled for people making ~$250k or less and none of the cuts for people making more than that and it wouldn't be a better bill by every practical measure. What dance? The one where you admit people claimed taxes would go up for the middle class and they actually won't until close to the expiry? Wait, that wouldn't be a dance that would be a boring repetition of fact. But you can still do that. I read the thread too and I thought it was being more criticized on the spin than the merits. We can "Wait, but health insurance impact" if we start at an honest playing field, which I think we still don't have. My question to you is how would taking the same amount of money from the tax cuts and excluding people making $250,000+/yr hell we'll say $400,000 for couples, not be a better bill than giving someone making 2,000,000+/yr a $10,000 tax cut? I actually answered that here yesterday.
That really doesn't answer my question. "Assuming competitive and efficient markets with perfect information," means the rest is useless.
|
|
|
Assumptions aren't binary. It's certainly more true than false, or we wouldn't be living in a capitalistic economic system.
The fact that you (or some journalist more likely) read a trendy paper title and took it to heart that "people are financially irrational" is more a reflection of the sad state of academic publication and reporting than it is reality.
|
On December 02 2017 10:53 mozoku wrote:
Assumptions aren't binary. It's certainly more true than false, or we wouldn't be living in a capitalistic economic system.
The fact that you (or some journalist more likely) read a trendy paper title and took it to heart that "people are financially irrational" is more a reflection of the sad state of academic publication and reporting than it is reality.
The marketing industry has spent decades researching how to induce people to make irrational decisions. Spoiler: They have been quite successful.
|
If people were rational decisions makers, we wouldn't need fair debt and usury laws.
|
On December 02 2017 11:06 Plansix wrote:
If people were rational decisions makers, we wouldn't need fair debt and usury laws.
There's a special irony to DWS thinking they are too tight. But yes, this too.
|
Remind me what that has to do with the efficiency of the finance industry again? Investors and financial institutions behave differently with respect to marketing than individual consumers do. People are more careful with their life's savings than they are with their lunch money.
|
re: mozoku argument
if you're using classical logic, then assumptions are binary, and you started with assume false, which is certainly grounds to ignore the rest.
if you're using fuzzy logic, or one of the other more newly developed systems, you'll need to specify which one, and note where what your'e trying to prove was actually proved under that logical system (not that such systems tend to really deal with the same sense of proof).
at any rate, the findings of behavioral economics have been vastly documented by now, and ignoring them in favor of the known flaws of classical economics makes for a highly suspect conclusion.
|
On December 02 2017 11:17 mozoku wrote:
Remind me what that has to do with the efficiency of the finance industry again? Investors and financial institutions behave differently with respect to marketing than individual consumers do. People are more careful with their life's savings than they are with their lunch money.
I work for banks cleaning up their legal disasters, they are not rational decisions makers. At all. They are all about quarterly profits and short term gains. You are worshipping a fictional version of financial institutions.
|
On December 02 2017 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 11:06 Plansix wrote:
If people were rational decisions makers, we wouldn't need fair debt and usury laws. There's a special irony to DWS thinking they are too tight. But yes, this too.
She is a fucking dumb ass, but that's Florida for you.
|
|
|
United States42009 Posts
On December 02 2017 09:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2017 09:45 KwarK wrote:On December 02 2017 09:38 Introvert wrote:On December 02 2017 09:27 KwarK wrote:On December 02 2017 09:22 Danglars wrote:On December 02 2017 09:01 doomdonker wrote:
If this was a simple corporate rate tax cut like Danglers and mozoku are describing, a decent bill shouldn't be hard to pass. They wouldn't be hiding the bill, amending it a billion times behind closed doors and writing in the margins with pen. The Democratic Party, and actual left wing parties in general, don't mind the concept of corporate tax rate cuts. Shit, Sweden's center-left party just proposed a corporate tax cut.
It isn't really though, the Republicans flirted with the idea of RAISING the corporate tax over time so it would be more budget neutral. Its a straight up tax cut for the most wealthy while hiking taxes for actual middle class families (not individuals). 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. Hey Danglars, are you aware that the deduction is actually decreasing for most families once you account for the exemption being removed? 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 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=1Basically 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. It relates to taxes because it is done at the same time; it is considered in all of these analyses. The credit is going up though either way. This is not to deny that many people will see an increase (and what the hell is an "average" payer? That's too vague a talking point for my liking). And of course there are the lower rates. It is indeed a black box, which is why we need 590687 pieces on what will actually happen.
I know it's part of the analyses. You're missing my point. A refundable tax credit, like the current one, is essentially an unconditional payment based on an income qualification. You qualify = you get a check. Regardless of taxes. Calling it a tax credit is a bit of a misnomer, it's just a payment from the government. A non refundable tax credit reduces your taxes by the lesser of $1,000 or your taxes owed. See the distinction?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
