|
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. |
United States24752 Posts
For those not paying close attention, the final wording of the reconciled tax bill is locked in and includes the following:
- Lower the top tax rate from 39.6 to 37 percent. Also, the threshold for which that bracket kicks in is increased from $470,700 to $600,000 for married couples.
- The corporate tax rate is dropped from 35% to 21%.
- Deductions of State, Local, and Property Taxes is limited to $10,000 combined.
- The child tax credit is increased from $1,000 to $2,000 and more of the credit is refundable for low-earners.
- Individual Health Insurance Mandate goes away in 2019.
- The estate tax cutoff is increased from inheriting $5.5 million ($11 million for married couples) to $11 million ($22 million for married couples).
- Pass through companies get a 20 percent reduction. In other words, S corporations, LLCs, partnerships, and sole proprietorships can deduct 20 percent of their income tax-free (the changes expire after 2025).
- Corporate alternative minimum tax eliminated.
- Fewer families will have to pay the individual alternative minimum tax (not clear on numbers).
- The cap for deduction of mortgage interest paid is decreased from $1 million to $750,000 (doesn't affect existing loans).
- Note that the student loan deduction, medical expense deduction, and graduate student tuition wavers are not changing.
I didn't see anyone discussing it since the final text was released so I thought I'd summarize it here.
|
On December 16 2017 08:32 Nevuk wrote:
I think we've hit peak 2017
EPA in Colorado still takes the cake for me.
|
Though it’s failed in pretty much everything else this Congress certainly has been successful in being efficient corporate shills. Good work I guess.
|
Wasn't that bill supposed to be revenue neutral to avoid the filibuster?
Because that doesn't sound revenue neutral.
|
On December 16 2017 10:30 Simberto wrote:
Wasn't that bill supposed to be revenue neutral to avoid the filibuster?
Because that doesn't sound revenue neutral.
they used shenanigans that won't hit for several years to get around that.
that's why a bunch of stuff expires/changes 8-10 years from now, so it could get past that requirement.
but at this point it's clear they'd just nuke the filibuster anyways, so not much of a difference.
|
On December 16 2017 10:26 micronesia wrote:For those not paying close attention, the final wording of the reconciled tax bill is locked in and includes the following: - Lower the top tax rate from 39.6 to 37 percent. Also, the threshold for which that bracket kicks in is increased from $470,700 to $600,000 for married couples.
- The corporate tax rate is dropped from 35% to 21%.
- Deductions of State, Local, and Property Taxes is limited to $10,000 combined.
- The child tax credit is increased from $1,000 to $2,000 and more of the credit is refundable for low-earners.
- Individual Health Insurance Mandate goes away in 2019.
- The estate tax cutoff is increased from inheriting $5.5 million ($11 million for married couples) to $11 million ($22 million for married couples).
- Pass through companies get a 20 percent reduction. In other words, S corporations, LLCs, partnerships, and sole proprietorships can deduct 20 percent of their income tax-free (the changes expire after 2025).
- Corporate alternative minimum tax eliminated.
- Fewer families will have to pay the individual alternative minimum tax (not clear on numbers).
- The cap for deduction of mortgage interest paid is decreased from $1 million to $750,000 (doesn't affect existing loans).
- Note that the student loan deduction, medical expense deduction, and graduate student tuition wavers are not changing.
I didn't see anyone discussing it since the final text was released so I thought I'd summarize it here.
They removed the treatment of grad school tuition waivers as taxable income in the new version as well. The final version leaves grad school tuition waivers the same as they are in the status quo.
Also the estate tax is still in effect (at the same rate as status quo), but they doubled the threshold you need for it to affect you from $5.6M to $11.2M
|
United States24752 Posts
I'm glad to see you taking an interest and all, but... ?
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/n1yKa6Z.png)
edit:
To below: like every bill ever.
|
On December 16 2017 10:30 Simberto wrote:
Wasn't that bill supposed to be revenue neutral to avoid the filibuster?
Because that doesn't sound revenue neutral.
Given earlier work in Congress, it can add about 1.5 trillion to the debt over 10 years.
***
I will say this bill could have been much worse.
|
On December 16 2017 10:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2017 10:30 Simberto wrote:
Wasn't that bill supposed to be revenue neutral to avoid the filibuster?
Because that doesn't sound revenue neutral. Given earlier work in Congress, it can add about 1.5 trillion to the debt over 10 years. *** I will say this bill could have been much worse.
it could indeed have been worse; but it's still a complete trash bill for which every one of them should be in prison (were it illegal to engage in such gross misconduct as it should be).
|
On December 16 2017 10:48 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2017 10:45 Introvert wrote:On December 16 2017 10:30 Simberto wrote:
Wasn't that bill supposed to be revenue neutral to avoid the filibuster?
Because that doesn't sound revenue neutral. Given earlier work in Congress, it can add about 1.5 trillion to the debt over 10 years. *** I will say this bill could have been much worse. it could indeed have been worse; but it's still a complete trash bill for which every one of them should be in prison (were it illegal to engage in such gross misconduct as it should be).
Ok, I have to ask: what gross misconduct?
|
On December 16 2017 10:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2017 10:48 zlefin wrote:On December 16 2017 10:45 Introvert wrote:On December 16 2017 10:30 Simberto wrote:
Wasn't that bill supposed to be revenue neutral to avoid the filibuster?
Because that doesn't sound revenue neutral. Given earlier work in Congress, it can add about 1.5 trillion to the debt over 10 years. *** I will say this bill could have been much worse. it could indeed have been worse; but it's still a complete trash bill for which every one of them should be in prison (were it illegal to engage in such gross misconduct as it should be). Ok, I have to ask: what gross misconduct?
I think the basic argument is that they're clearly, openly stating that they're doing it for their donors. Which is basically like bribery. Ok, not basically like, it is exactly bribery.
Also :
|
|
|
I must have missed that admission.
|
On December 16 2017 10:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2017 10:48 zlefin wrote:On December 16 2017 10:45 Introvert wrote:On December 16 2017 10:30 Simberto wrote:
Wasn't that bill supposed to be revenue neutral to avoid the filibuster?
Because that doesn't sound revenue neutral. Given earlier work in Congress, it can add about 1.5 trillion to the debt over 10 years. *** I will say this bill could have been much worse. it could indeed have been worse; but it's still a complete trash bill for which every one of them should be in prison (were it illegal to engage in such gross misconduct as it should be). Ok, I have to ask: what gross misconduct?
intentionally making a trash bill that they know is bad. harming the american people thereby, in violations of the duty of their office (from an ethical standpoint).
the most equivalent term I can think of is dereliction of duty (for which I'm not familiar with the actual legal definition, so maybe it's not a good fit), or some sort of gross negligence.
|
On December 16 2017 11:02 mozoku wrote:
I must have missed that admission.
Lots of em said it :
Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) had been describing the flurry of lobbying from special interests seeking to protect favored tax provisions when a reporter asked if donors are happy with the tax-reform proposal.
“My donors are basically saying, ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again,’ ” Collins replied.
thehill.com
“Donors are furious,” Gardner said, according to a New York Times report. “We haven’t kept our promise.”
The Times article went on to describe Senate GOPers as “panicked,” and suggested fear over donation losses was “behind the sudden zeal to take one last crack at repealing the health care law” back in September. www.nytimes.com
It's still anyone's guess whether the bill's backers can get to 50 votes. One Republican senator suggested that McConnell may ultimately decide to bring the bill up for another failed vote, in part to show GOP donors and President Donald Trump that the Senate GOP tried again. www.politico.com (about the last healthcare push, note that McConnell said we're going to taxes immediately after)
Like, those are just the ones who were willing to say what it was about out loud. Sure, some of them did it in a vaguely off the record way (one GOP senator said, etc.), but there's no reason to think they were lying.
|
Is it supposed to be news that donors are threatening not to continue donating if the party they're donating to controls all legislative levers and passes zero of their legislative agenda? Is it even clear there's something wrong with that?
Some of us believe this bill is an improvement over the status quo, shocking as that may be to most of you. And despite all of your supposed ironclad evidence that you guys presented to me against regressive tax codes, none of it was very convincing. I'll submit that estimating the effect of tax policy on economic growth is difficult, but it's flatly ridiculous to have your levels of certainty that it's zero or negative given the evidence you guys have submitted so far. I don't even see that as a contentious position. Not mention, there are valid arguments around fairness in favor of the bill as well.
You're both operating under the assumption that the bill is clearly bad for the country, that the GOP politicians passing it agree, and that their donors donated mostly in self-interest. Outside of leftist bubbles, those are not uncontested facts.
|
On December 16 2017 11:36 mozoku wrote:
Is it supposed to be news that donors are threatening not to continue donating if the party they're donating to controls all legislative levers and passes zero of their legislative agenda? Is it even clear there's something wrong with that?
Some of us believe this bill is an improvement over the status quo, shocking as that may be to most of you. And despite all of your supposed ironclad evidence that you guys presented to me against regressive tax codes, none of it was very convincing. I'll submit that estimating the effect of tax policy on economic growth is difficult, but it's flatly ridiculous to have your levels of certainty that it's zero or negative given the evidence you guys have submitted so far. I don't even see that as a contentious position. Not mention, there are valid arguments around fairness.
You're both operating under the assumption that the bill is clearly bad for the country, that the GOP politicians passing it agree, and that their donors donated mostly in self-interest. Outside of leftist bubbles, those are not uncontested facts.
As I've said before, this is the first time that many people will actually see Republicans passing a big ticket item. This level of panic, doomsaying, and disgust I think comes partly from the fact that this is a new experience for many. It's one thing to have GWB work with Democrats to expand government programs or have a GOP Congress frustrate a Democrat president. It's a new thing for the GOP to implement their own policies and have them become law.
|
it's not an assumption that it's bad, it's a fact. it was clearly done very sloppily and hastily, and includes several bad provisions, plus several with a very questionable ethical basis.
contestations that come from bad faith and/or falsities don't count.
just as I would not count the protestations of a flat-earther.
|
holiday spending check
trump economic optimism check
tax cut check
low interest rates check
my prediction: economy about to go into hyperdrive (for who knows how long) before having a spectacular collapse
|
"In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered."
What the actual fuck?
It's not entirely clear to me what this is even supposed to accomplish other than being a pain in the ass for whoever gets to write these documents. Good luck getting the phrase "evidence-based medicine" out of modern clinical research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
