$1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread

[Torie]

I played around with my income tax plan calculator that I built based on the House and Senate plans and added in the feature to do calculations for Singles and Head of Household recently. One thing I noticed about the House and Senate plans is that both closes the gap on the marriage penalty for higher income taxpayers.  But it seems the Senate plan is much more aggressive on closing that gap than the House.  High income singles will get hit badly by this.  It seems the greatest net loser in the Senate tax plan, by far, is the high income single salaried taxpayer living in an ultra-high tax area, say, San Francisco or NYC.   Wow.  My wife tells me some of her single investment banking friends in NYC are very steamed by this plan.  I can see why.  I put in some numbers and nearly fell off my seat on how badly they will get hit.

Combine this with the Republican Party's "family values" rhetoric, and I can't help but wonder if there's a motive for this.

I think it is a bit more complex then that.  It is more about assortative mating at the higher income levels.  The current tax code actually make is neutral or even slightly advantageous for a doctor to marry a nurse but carries heavy punishments when a doctor marries a doctor.  The House and to much a bigger extent the Senate plans reduces or even eliminates this punishment.  This would be a non-issue 50 years ago but with the change in social norms and social expectations of women in professional world this is a relevant issue.  To some extent assortative mating at the top plus the rise of services in the economy are major drivers of household income inequity last couple of generations.  This marriage penalty in the tax code partially offset this trend.  Now if the Senate plan passes, with my total support, this economic constraint on assortative mating will be removed, as it should be.

You really believe this, or is it just trolling? I mean such a policy in my feeble old mind, is just so wrong on so many levels. It has that odor of eugenics about it for starters. But then again, such "power couples" may be too engaged in other endeavors to have much desire to be bogged down with rug rats. So maybe not. Anyway, just ugh, in my opinion. Meanwhile I am hooked up with a talented artist who makes next to no money. Maybe it is time to get married under the new tax code from hell!

[Matty]

No news on senate whip count?

Weird.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How tax reform will affect me depends on the future phases of my life.

Currently - Net loss of 2-3K under House plan, gain of 4-5K under Senate plan. 

In 2-3 years when I will go into semi-retirement by working part time and DW completely retires - gain of 4-5K under House Plan and gain of 4-5K under Senate plan mostly because AMT goes away.

In 5-6 years when I will completely retire but live in Scarsdale until my kid goes to college - loss of 6K-7K under House plan and loss of 7K-8K under Senate plan mostly due to loss of deductions of real estate taxes will shift what rates my qualified dividends will be taxed at.

In 11-12 years when I will move to FL in retirement - gain of 4-5K under House Plan and gain of 4-5K under Senate plan mostly because of the larger standard deduction and lower rates.

Overall this plan is a plus for us and it goes through most likely I will work part time a bit longer I had planned to make up for some of the losses I will incur under this plan when I go into full retirement but still live in high tax Scarsdale.

Tell me, do you ever consider anything other than your own narrow self-interest in such matters or do you think worrying about the effects upon society, the economy, and the long-term fiscal health of the government is for suckers?

[jaichind]

I played around with my income tax plan calculator that I built based on the House and Senate plans and added in the feature to do calculations for Singles and Head of Household recently. One thing I noticed about the House and Senate plans is that both closes the gap on the marriage penalty for higher income taxpayers.  But it seems the Senate plan is much more aggressive on closing that gap than the House.  High income singles will get hit badly by this.  It seems the greatest net loser in the Senate tax plan, by far, is the high income single salaried taxpayer living in an ultra-high tax area, say, San Francisco or NYC.   Wow.  My wife tells me some of her single investment banking friends in NYC are very steamed by this plan.  I can see why.  I put in some numbers and nearly fell off my seat on how badly they will get hit.

Combine this with the Republican Party's "family values" rhetoric, and I can't help but wonder if there's a motive for this.

I think it is a bit more complex then that.  It is more about assortative mating at the higher income levels.  The current tax code actually make is neutral or even slightly advantageous for a doctor to marry a nurse but carries heavy punishments when a doctor marries a doctor.  The House and to much a bigger extent the Senate plans reduces or even eliminates this punishment.  This would be a non-issue 50 years ago but with the change in social norms and social expectations of women in professional world this is a relevant issue.  To some extent assortative mating at the top plus the rise of services in the economy are major drivers of household income inequity last couple of generations.  This marriage penalty in the tax code partially offset this trend.  Now if the Senate plan passes, with my total support, this economic constraint on assortative mating will be removed, as it should be.

You really believe this, or is it just trolling? I mean such a policy in my feeble old mind, is just so wrong on so many levels. It has that odor of eugenics about it for starters. But then again, such "power couples" may be too engaged in other endeavors to have much desire to be bogged down with rug rats. So maybe not. Anyway, just ugh, in my opinion. Meanwhile I am hooked up with a talented artist who makes next to no money. Maybe it is time to get married under the new tax code from hell!

Well, lets be clear what I am saying.   I am for taxes being the same for two people regardless or not they are married or not.  RIght now that is clearly not the case



What this set of tax proposals will reduce the marriage penalty for two high income couples.  My positions on eugenics is neutral and I want the government to hold the same position.  The current tax laws has a clear anti-eugenics bias toward the higher income bands.  A pro-eugenicists tax code would be to tax heavier for low income couple relative to if they filed as single and tax lower for high income married couples realtive to if they filed as single.  IF that were the case I would be equally opposed to that setup just like I am opposed this differential tax treatment today.   

[jaichind]

How tax reform will affect me depends on the future phases of my life.

Currently - Net loss of 2-3K under House plan, gain of 4-5K under Senate plan. 

In 2-3 years when I will go into semi-retirement by working part time and DW completely retires - gain of 4-5K under House Plan and gain of 4-5K under Senate plan mostly because AMT goes away.

In 5-6 years when I will completely retire but live in Scarsdale until my kid goes to college - loss of 6K-7K under House plan and loss of 7K-8K under Senate plan mostly due to loss of deductions of real estate taxes will shift what rates my qualified dividends will be taxed at.

In 11-12 years when I will move to FL in retirement - gain of 4-5K under House Plan and gain of 4-5K under Senate plan mostly because of the larger standard deduction and lower rates.

Overall this plan is a plus for us and it goes through most likely I will work part time a bit longer I had planned to make up for some of the losses I will incur under this plan when I go into full retirement but still live in high tax Scarsdale.

Tell me, do you ever consider anything other than your own narrow self-interest in such matters or do you think worrying about the effects upon society, the economy, and the long-term fiscal health of the government is for suckers?

Of course.  Overall I am mostly looking out for number one but that will be overridden by policy preferences I have.  For example, lets take this tax reform proposal.   I would be better of if Trump/GOP just does a mini version of what Bush II did in 2001.  But I really like taking away SALT Mortgage deductions as well, especially the Senate, the push to fix up the marriage penalty so I am more included to back this current set of proposals versus just an smallish across the board tax cut.

Also, I am for the House version taking away the health spending deduction on the principle that I do not see why the government should subside  health care spending versus say spending on buying a care.  Understand that this actually complicates my plan to go into full retirement fairly early in my career.  While the medium scenario has me mostly benefiting under this tax reform plan, the 10% scenario where I have lot of health care spending (including insurance premiums) I stand to lose a lot.  Of course that just means that I might have to defer my early retirement by a year or two.  I am fully responsible for planning for my retirement and it is on my to figure out what risk I want to take, not for the government to bail me out.

[Shadows]

I played around with my income tax plan calculator that I built based on the House and Senate plans and added in the feature to do calculations for Singles and Head of Household recently. One thing I noticed about the House and Senate plans is that both closes the gap on the marriage penalty for higher income taxpayers.  But it seems the Senate plan is much more aggressive on closing that gap than the House.  High income singles will get hit badly by this.  It seems the greatest net loser in the Senate tax plan, by far, is the high income single salaried taxpayer living in an ultra-high tax area, say, San Francisco or NYC.   Wow.  My wife tells me some of her single investment banking friends in NYC are very steamed by this plan.  I can see why.  I put in some numbers and nearly fell off my seat on how badly they will get hit.

Combine this with the Republican Party's "family values" rhetoric, and I can't help but wonder if there's a motive for this.

I think it is a bit more complex then that.  It is more about assortative mating at the higher income levels.  The current tax code actually make is neutral or even slightly advantageous for a doctor to marry a nurse but carries heavy punishments when a doctor marries a doctor.  The House and to much a bigger extent the Senate plans reduces or even eliminates this punishment.  This would be a non-issue 50 years ago but with the change in social norms and social expectations of women in professional world this is a relevant issue.  To some extent assortative mating at the top plus the rise of services in the economy are major drivers of household income inequity last couple of generations.  This marriage penalty in the tax code partially offset this trend.  Now if the Senate plan passes, with my total support, this economic constraint on assortative mating will be removed, as it should be.

You really believe this, or is it just trolling? I mean such a policy in my feeble old mind, is just so wrong on so many levels. It has that odor of eugenics about it for starters. But then again, such "power couples" may be too engaged in other endeavors to have much desire to be bogged down with rug rats. So maybe not. Anyway, just ugh, in my opinion. Meanwhile I am hooked up with a talented artist who makes next to no money. Maybe it is time to get married under the new tax code from hell!

Well, lets be clear what I am saying.   I am for taxes being the same for two people regardless or not they are married or not.  RIght now that is clearly not the case



What this set of tax proposals will reduce the marriage penalty for two high income couples.  My positions on eugenics is neutral and I want the government to hold the same position.  The current tax laws has a clear anti-eugenics bias toward the higher income bands.  A pro-eugenicists tax code would be to tax heavier for low income couple relative to if they filed as single and tax lower for high income married couples realtive to if they filed as single.  IF that were the case I would be equally opposed to that setup just like I am opposed this differential tax treatment today.   

It is probably impossible mathematically to come up with a progressive taxation code which will be stay the same for singles, married couples filing jointly & separately at all levels.

I think in pre-WW II, married couples had to file single tax returns. You are correct that, at a similar income, married couples can pay at a higher rate than single ones. Ideally, tax policies must be neutral to marriage choices & shouldn't incentive such behavior unless there is threat of cataclysm or any such activity (Ex - Carbon tax to disincentive Global Warming & to ensure Fossil Fuels bear social & economic indirect cost).

Ofcourse, I totally disagree on the idea of taking exemptions from middle class like SALT which prevents double taxation & has been there since the inception of the code (AMT already ensures many high earners pay a fair share). Likewise, healthcare is a right in most countries & medical expenses should be tax free. However, those are ideological differences. Ideally, the tax code shouldn't interfere into marriage related issues.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I am fully responsible for planning for my retirement and it is on me to figure out what risk I want to take, not for the government to bail me out.

I find it amusing that you continue to be so self-centered even as you try to show you aren't.

I'll grant it would be better to turn the various tax expenditures into actual expenditures so as to simplify the tax code, but since that's not in the cards,  You give not a single thought to the fact that few people have the resources to be fully responsible for their retirement.  Your support for eliminating the marriage penalty/benefit is apparently based on nothing but abstract reasoning with no consideration of what led to it to begin with. (In particular, the desire to keep people from gaming the tax system by arbitrarily assigning income/assets where it would reduce taxes.)

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Graham is confident that the Senate will pass its bill: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/11/26/politics/graham-tax-reform-sotu-cnntv/index.html#ampshare=http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/26/politics/graham-tax-reform-sotu-cnntv/index.html

[IceSpear]

Something is definitely going to pass, that's for sure. The GOP can't afford otherwise. The question is exactly what monstrosity emerges from the sausage making conference committee.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Something is definitely going to pass, that's for sure. The GOP can't afford otherwise. The question is exactly what monstrosity emerges from the sausage making conference committee.

Would the Senate bill be able to pass in the house with the freedom caucus opposing it?

[jaichind]

It seems there will be pressure for the Senate to alter its plan on Real Estate taxes to cap it at 10K like the House version instead of getting rid of it completely.  Issue here is where to find the money for this.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

First Hurdle for Senate Tax Bill will be Committee Vote on Tuesday. Johnson and Corker are on the committee and if they vote no along with all Dems, bill fails in committee.

[junior chįmp]

First Hurdle for Senate Tax Bill will be Committee Vote on Tuesday. Johnson and Corker are on the committee and if they vote no along with all Dems, bill fails in committee.

Let's not fool ourselves...Johnson will vote Yes.

[GeorgiaModerate]

First Hurdle for Senate Tax Bill will be Committee Vote on Tuesday. Johnson and Corker are on the committee and if they vote no along with all Dems, bill fails in committee.

Let's not fool ourselves...Johnson will vote Yes.

Of course he will.  I'll further predict that he'll say he knows the bill isn't perfect, but he wants to move the process along, or something like that.

[junior chįmp]

First Hurdle for Senate Tax Bill will be Committee Vote on Tuesday. Johnson and Corker are on the committee and if they vote no along with all Dems, bill fails in committee.

Let's not fool ourselves...Johnson will vote Yes.

Of course he will.  I'll further predict that he'll say he knows the bill isn't perfect, but he wants to move the process along, or something like that.

Apparently Johnson has a bunch of money stored somewhere offshore and was holding the bill because he wanted an even lower pass through rate should he decide to bless us by so courageously returning his money here. Johnson is scum

[Frodo]

The CBO has confirmed what we already knew -the Senate GOP plan (to say nothing of the House version) will definitely screw the poor while giving relief to the rich and the corporations:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

WashPo

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is literally so Mr. Burns-level evil it's funny. Yet we still have a number of defenders of the white-grievance Grand Ole Perverts Party insisting that Trumpism is a winning strategy for the GOP because it is an ideology that sticks up for the working folks that this plan would bone right in the butt. But MUH sanctuary cities and NAFTA, amirite?

People deserve what they vote for!

Trumpism as it is now is and was always going to be either a clean break from the previous order (impossible in any scenario that involved them winning) or a molotov cocktail burning down the old order from the inside.

It is not the end result, it is a transition phase.

[MasterJedi]

This is literally so Mr. Burns-level evil it's funny. Yet we still have a number of defenders of the white-grievance Grand Ole Perverts Party insisting that Trumpism is a winning strategy for the GOP because it is an ideology that sticks up for the working folks that this plan would bone right in the butt. But MUH sanctuary cities and NAFTA, amirite?

People deserve what they vote for!

They're running ads saying working class people will pay less taxes, so the real blowback will be when they all have to pay more.

[Matty]

Rand Paul says he is a yes

[mvd10]

The CBO has confirmed what we already knew -the Senate GOP plan (to say nothing of the House version) will definitely screw the poor while giving relief to the rich and the corporations:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

WashPo

Will people actually get less money because their subsidies will be cut or is this the effect of people receiving less subsidies after they decide to cancel their health insurance because the mandate will be eliminated? Neither is good, but it does make a difference.

Anyway, the mandate definitely shouldn't be repealed. American healthcare is so horribly inefficient that it's almost funny. Repeal of the individual mandate is enough to make the senate plan much worse than the house plan (it doesn't even belong in a tax bill anyway, but we can thank the Supreme Court for that).

[Ebsy]

Daines is a no.

[MasterJedi]

Daines is a no.

I'll leave hope but I'll believe it when I see it.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Daines is a no.

Do you have a source for this?

[Ebsy]

Daines is a no.

Do you have a source for this?

FOX Business.

[The Other Castro]

Daines is a no.

Do you have a source for this?

FOX Business.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-27/senate-plans-tax-vote-amid-trump-sales-pitch-tax-debate-update

Also:

Sahil Kapur @sahilkapur
Sen. James Lankford says he's concerned the tax cuts won't yield the promised growth and wants a "backstop" built in if revenues plunge.

Very interesting: Lankford floats a trigger in which tax rates could rise if revenues crash. He declines to say if he'd support bill as written, describing it as "in flux."

Biggest hurdle for tax bill now is a few Senate GOP deficit hawks—Corker, Flake, Lankford. If they're placated it probably becomes unstoppable.

TOOMEY says on @BloombergTV he opposes Lankford's debt shield trigger, saying it "could have a self-fulfilling effect."

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/935239072213237761