$1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm more worried that muh deficit hawk Corker voted yes. At this, point, this might past without Pence even having to break the tie.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Based on the varying actions and statements, a ton of movement today. Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp move from Likely Opposed to Safe Opposed. Corker moves from Lean Opposed to Toss-Up. Johnson moves from Lean Support to Safe Support. I'm sorry I ever believed that cuck would even think about opposing this. Kennedy moves from Safe Support to Lean Support.

To Summarize the view of the Senate:

Solidly Opposed: All 48 Dems

Likely Opposed: N/A

Lean Opposed:
Collins - Appeared to indicate on 11/19 CNN interview that her support would depend on passage of Alexander-Murray and a separate bill she wrote with Senator Nelson, and keeping the top rate at 39.6%, instead of lowering it to 38.5%.

Daines - Bloomberg and Fox Business have stated that a Daines staff member says he is a no, while CNN and the Washington Post have stated that Daines has raised concerns about certain corporate provisions in the bill without explicitly stating he has threatened to vote no. The guy is generally a backbencher and is thus probably not completely out of reach for McConnell, but it appears his opposition is serious.

Toss-Up:
Lankford - He's said he'll vote against it "if it increases the deficit too much" - but didn't define what too much meant.  He's also called for a trigger provision that would raise tax rates in times of insufficent economic growth, and has explicitly refused to endorse the bill as written, although he has yet to explicitly oppose the bill and is generally a reliable vote for leadership.

Corker - Voted Yes in committee, but has been clear that his support on final passage will depend on the inclusion of a trigger provision in the bill. It is unclear if such a provision will be in the final version of the bill.

Lean Support:
Flake - Might want to show opposition to Trump, and has raised real doubts about the eventual affect of the bill, but also probably supports the intent of this bill, and he did vote for all versions of ObamaCare Repeal.

Murkowski - Has come out in support of mandate repeal, and she usually supports cutting Taxes. But she was a thorn in the side of Senate R's during the ObamaCare repeal debate, says she has come to no final decision on the plan, and is still promoting Alexander-Murray heavily.

Moran - Sources from Politico to the Washington Post to CNN have stated that Moran has concerns about the bill's repeal of the individual mandate, and he was a no vote on certain versions of health care reform. But he has a record of generally being a reliable vote for leadership, is a solid conservative, and voted for Skinny Repeal. As such, he will likelier than not be able to be whipped into submission.

Kennedy - Has threatened to vote against the bill if McConnell decides to include a Trigger provision, which McConnell may do to please Lankford and Corker.

Likely Support:
McCain - Voted against Skinny Repeal and opposed Graham-Cassidy, but he is a strong supporter of the tax cut portions of this bill, and his opposition to repeal was based more on the process of passage rather than the substance of the bill. I doubt mandate repeal alone would be a dealbreaker to him. But it's not impossible.

Young - Apparently has been raising deficit-related concerns about the bill, but I highly doubt he actually has a backbone.

Paul - Despite his previous stance against the framework, Paul "supports the bill as it stands right now", as reported by Bloomberg News. Still keep an eye on him, as the bill may be amended on the senate floor and it's not impossible that it could be amended in such a way that it changes his stance.

Safe Support: Other 41 GOP Senators


Overall: 50 AGAINST, 48 SUPPORT, 2 TOSS-UP

[Ye We Can]

I seriously doubt Daines will actually vote no. I think it passes, 51-49, barring something unexpected.

[Dr. Arch]

And the monumentally catastrophic change in the tax code for graduate students is still in there, correct?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

And the monumentally catastrophic change in the tax code for graduate students is still in there, correct?

Of course

[Dr. Arch]

And the monumentally catastrophic change in the tax code for graduate students is still in there, correct?

Of course

Sigh...

[Ye We Can]

And the monumentally catastrophic change in the tax code for graduate students is still in there, correct?

Of course

Sigh...

Do explain? I missed this.

[Dr. Arch]

And the monumentally catastrophic change in the tax code for graduate students is still in there, correct?

Of course

Sigh...

Do explain? I missed this.

They're making a change to the tax code so that tuition remission is taxed as income for graduate students. That means that students making around $16k a year will have to pay taxes for $40k or more. Not only does that make them jump tax brackets, it also taxes them for a ridiculous amount of their already extremely low actual income.

[BudgieForce]

I thought the Senate version of the bill didn't have the tuition remission part.

[Dr. Arch]

I thought the Senate version of the bill didn't have the tuition remission part.

You're right on this, but we'll see what happens in the reconciliation process.

https://www.snopes.com/tax-plan-graduate-students/

[Antonio the Sixth]

And the monumentally catastrophic change in the tax code for graduate students is still in there, correct?

Of course

Sigh...

Well, this will be fun.

[IceSpear]

Did anyone seriously believe that Ron Johnson of all people would vote no? lol

Voting it out of committee doesn't necessarily mean he'll vote yes on the final bill. McCain voted for the MTP on Obamacare repeal and then switched his vote to kill it. Who knows how the last-minute negotiations and amendments to this thing will end up.

Don't kid yourself. Johnson is and always was a safe yes vote.

[jaichind]

They're making a change to the tax code so that tuition remission is taxed as income for graduate students. That means that students making around $16k a year will have to pay taxes for $40k or more. Not only does that make them jump tax brackets, it also taxes them for a ridiculous amount of their already extremely low actual income.

Conceptually this tax change makes a lot of sense to me from a consistency point of view.  For example if a landlord provides an apartment rent-free to a superintendent and the superintendent also receives a salary from the landlord, the value of the apartment's free-market rent is considered part of the superintendent's compensation requiring tax payments by both him and the landlord (for federal state local taxes as well as FICA.) 

Of course if the graduate has been given a scholarship by the university then it is different story.   I believe the proposed tax changes only tries to tax the value of labor provided by the graduate student who receives discounts off the tuition in compensation.  If so then this tax changes merely makes it consistent with the existing tax code. 

[mvd10]

I'm sure everyone's favorite RINO is jizzing up a storm right now. After all, tax cuts for the wealthy is basically the only reason s/he's a Republican.

It's better than being a Republican because you just hate the blacks

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The corporate tax cut will attract companies, spur investment and create thousands of jobs for minorities. Trump loves minorities and minorities will love Trump after they get their big fat TRUMP paycheck next year . Democrats oppose corporate tax cuts because they help minorities. SAD!

Why do you have a blue avatar again? Clearly you don't drink the kool-aid on trickle-down and white-grievance, so I'm genuinely puzzled.

To be honest I'd support slashing the corporate tax rate, reforming medicare and increasing the Social Security retirement. I just don't buy most of the other Republican policies, especially the ones that would harm the extreme poor for a spending cut equal to 0.05% of GDP or so. And I usually keep my quality posts for the International Elections forum (Merica gets the sh**t posts) and in Europe I'm clearly a right-winger.

Anyway, I'm not sure whether the deficit trigger is a good idea. It basically would be a gigantic tax increase during a recession, and it would create a lot of uncertainty for businesses. If they want to reduce the cost to the deficit they should just make it a $1.0-1.2 trillion tax cut by further cutting loopholes.

If Johnson folds so easily I don't expect Daines to be a no for long (and Lankford probably will end up voting yes as well). I'd worry more about Corker and Collins.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Did anyone seriously believe that Ron Johnson of all people would vote no? lol

Voting it out of committee doesn't necessarily mean he'll vote yes on the final bill. McCain voted for the MTP on Obamacare repeal and then switched his vote to kill it. Who knows how the last-minute negotiations and amendments to this thing will end up.

Don't kid yourself. Johnson is and always was a safe yes vote.

Yep. Johnson didn't care about Wisconsin for one second during his first term and still won re-election, so why should he care now? It's really sad that the LameStream Media convinced me to give him a chance in a non-Safe Column, but at least he made his position crystal clear today.

[Santander]

Larry Kudlow says tax plan will "hurt" people:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/29/trump-tax-reform-kudlow-194187

[Pyro]

Larry Kudlow says tax plan will "hurt" people:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/29/trump-tax-reform-kudlow-194187

That hasn't stopped them before.

[Santander]

Larry Kudlow says tax plan will "hurt" people:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/29/trump-tax-reform-kudlow-194187

That hasn't stopped them before.

In fact, they're probably licking their lips at the prospect. Conservatism is a form of sociopathy.

[Person Man]

Larry Kudlow says tax plan will "hurt" people:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/29/trump-tax-reform-kudlow-194187

Then guess what.

[Santander]

Presumably by "people", he means himself, anyway.

[junior chįmp]

Larry Kudlow says tax plan will "hurt" people:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/29/trump-tax-reform-kudlow-194187

Granny starver Paul Ryan just jizzed

[Matty]

Rubio and lee want corp cut to 22% not 20% in order to pay for more generous child credits

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Rubio and lee want corp cut to 22% not 20% in order to pay for more generous child credits

Should go the opposite way and reduce the corporate rate lower and axe more child credits.

[Dr. Arch]

Rubio and lee want corp cut to 22% not 20% in order to pay for more generous child credits

Should go the opposite way and reduce the corporate rate lower and axe more child credits.

Tax children on their allowances while they're at it. That's the Republican way.

[The Other Castro]

Murkowski’s office says she will vote Yes.

https://mobile.twitter.com/bencjacobs/status/935954365113864192

McCain says “Stay tuned”.

https://mobile.twitter.com/seungminkim/status/935959434681085952

Collins is a Yes on the MTP, but still concerned over individual mandate.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/935955798395670528