$1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

^ If you can somehow get Congress to pass that then go for it. You have my blessing.

In 2006, the Republicans passed a minimum wage increase tied to a permanent death tax repeal in the house, but it fell short of the 60 votes in the Senate.

The following year the Democrats passed $7.15 with other tax cuts attached to it. There has long been a model of tying minimum wage hikes to tax cut proposals.

It is something I could see a large number of Senators and even Trump going along with. With Cruz, Lee and Paul opposed in the Senate and the Freedom Caucus in the House.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

1.5 million over the next 10 years is not that big of a cut and can easily be made up.


-Taxing overseas havens ,including a one time wealth tax on those havens

- Cutting 70 billion dollars in military spending

McCain is raising bloody murder about the budget resolution not including increases in defense spending.

The problem is that the Republican majorities are too small. Republicans are paying for the mistakes made in 2012 in IN, MO, ND and MT right now. With 56 Senators they would have far more flexibility and could tell the grand standers to take a hike.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

1.5 million over the next 10 years is not that big of a cut and can easily be made up.


-Taxing overseas havens ,including a one time wealth tax on those havens

- Cutting 70 billion dollars in military spending

McCain is raising bloody murder about the budget resolution not including increases in defense spending.

The problem is that the Republican majorities are too small. Republicans are paying for the mistakes made in 2012 in IN, MO, ND and MT right now. With 56 Senators they would have far more flexibility and could tell the grand standers to take a hike.

Did they really have a better candidate to face Tester in 2012?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

1.5 million over the next 10 years is not that big of a cut and can easily be made up.


-Taxing overseas havens ,including a one time wealth tax on those havens

- Cutting 70 billion dollars in military spending

McCain is raising bloody murder about the budget resolution not including increases in defense spending.

The problem is that the Republican majorities are too small. Republicans are paying for the mistakes made in 2012 in IN, MO, ND and MT right now. With 56 Senators they would have far more flexibility and could tell the grand standers to take a hike.

Did they really have a better candidate to face Tester in 2012?

"Mistakes" is a broad term.  Lugar should have retired and Becky Skillman would have won that primary and the General election by 18%.  Berg and Rehberg should have run better candidates and anybody but Akin should have been the nominee in MO.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

1.5 million over the next 10 years is not that big of a cut and can easily be made up.


-Taxing overseas havens ,including a one time wealth tax on those havens

- Cutting 70 billion dollars in military spending

McCain is raising bloody murder about the budget resolution not including increases in defense spending.

The problem is that the Republican majorities are too small. Republicans are paying for the mistakes made in 2012 in IN, MO, ND and MT right now. With 56 Senators they would have far more flexibility and could tell the grand standers to take a hike.

Did they really have a better candidate to face Tester in 2012?

"Mistakes" is a broad term.  Lugar should have retired and Becky Skillman would have won that primary and the General election by 18%.  Berg and Rehberg should have run better candidates and anybody but Akin should have been the nominee in MO.

Skillman was considering running for IN Governor in 2012 but opted out due to her medical condition. Given that I don't think she would have ran for Senate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

1.5 million over the next 10 years is not that big of a cut and can easily be made up.


-Taxing overseas havens ,including a one time wealth tax on those havens

- Cutting 70 billion dollars in military spending

McCain is raising bloody murder about the budget resolution not including increases in defense spending.

The problem is that the Republican majorities are too small. Republicans are paying for the mistakes made in 2012 in IN, MO, ND and MT right now. With 56 Senators they would have far more flexibility and could tell the grand standers to take a hike.

Did they really have a better candidate to face Tester in 2012?

"Mistakes" is a broad term.  Lugar should have retired and Becky Skillman would have won that primary and the General election by 18%.  Berg and Rehberg should have run better candidates and anybody but Akin should have been the nominee in MO.

Skillman was considering running for IN Governor in 2012 but opted out due to her medical condition. Given that I don't think she would have ran for Senate.

There were other potential candidates as well that would have come forward with an open seat.

[Frodo]

The Freedom Caucus will back the Senate GOP budget plan -but they want their pound of flesh in exchange for their support:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/20/freedom-caucus-senate-budget-tax-reform-244002

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This wealthy wank is going to crash the economy.

It seems that's the only way Americans are going to be weaned from Trumpism -let them suffer from the effects of his policies.  If they're not going to listen to the mainstream media, they will listen to their pocketbooks, at least.

Thing is, this is unlikely to cause any short term pain. The ill effects will largely happen after Trump's term, when Democrats will suffer the consequences of passing the measures needed to deal with this mess.

Doesn't this all expire in ten years since it is being done with budget reconciliation?

Unclear. What they're passing now is just a budget to let them use reconciliation, the actual tax reform bill comes later. The rule is 10 years only if it adds to the deficit, permanent if it doesn't. There's actually been some discussion of passing a bill with some permanent provisions and some temporary provisions. And as we saw with the bush tax cuts, when that 10 year deadline does come, there will be immense pressure on politicians to extend at least some of the cuts.

But eventually, the ones for the highest incomes were not extended.

Frankly I am beginning to coming around to wanting this to pass now for the sake of the corporate tax code reform and the simplification of the code. I think that will be of immense benefit to the economy. I am disturbed by the adding to the deficit obviously, in the mean time. But if this fails, I doubt it will ever get done.

You make some good points but it's very hard for me to support something that benefits the wealthy way more than the middle class and adds to the deficit. That being said I understand the framework and budget are not gospel and will postpone judgment until I see the final tax reform bill.

Well to all things there is a solution. If Republicans were far less in the mind of being sticks in the mud, I would add an increase of the minimum wage (say to $9.15) and a boost to the EITC significantly to ensure that there will be a substantial increase in take home pay for the lowest income brackets.

The massive tax cuts and simplification would help compensate small business for the increased labor expense and such a broad based boost to disposable incomes would benefit small business.

But of course Republicans in DC are stupid so it would never happen.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/graham-pitches-minimum-wage-hike-part-tax-reform-effort

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The house has voted 216-212 to approve the Senate Language, clearing the path to begin crafting of the actual tax reform bill.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/26/republican-leaders-budget-vote-244198

Republicans voted for the budget by 216-20, with 3 abstentions.
Democrats voted against the budget by 192-0, with 2 abstentions.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll589.xml

[riceowl]

Closeness of the vote makes me pretty confident some form of SALT deduction will remain in the final product.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Closeness of the vote makes me pretty confident some form of SALT deduction will remain in the final product.

Basically all the no votes were because of SALT....

[KingSweden]

Closeness of the vote makes me pretty confident some form of SALT deduction will remain in the final product.

Basically all the no votes were because of SALT....

I wonder if the DCCC is gonna be smart and try to beat Walters, Royce, Knight, Rohrabacher, Issa, Paulsen and Roskam over the head with the "tax raisers!" club

It’d be malpractice not to.

[mvd10]

So the Dems are now defending a tax deduction that disproportionally favors the wealthy. Why would you do that when you could also vote for a tax cut that disproportionally favors the wealthy ?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes but it emphasizes that as the Republican's evolve, so have the Democrats to being a party of upper class suburbs like Westchester, DuPage, Orange and Fairfax.

Yes the committee should do this, but it will pull them away from Sanders type Democrats and more towards Clinton style Democrats.

[OSR stands with Israel]

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/10/23/GOP-Eyes-Million-Dollar-Tax-Bracket

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/10/23/GOP-Eyes-Million-Dollar-Tax-Bracket

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why does anyone give a crap what this Commie adoring fruitcake thinks anymore?


There is absolutely no benefit to cutting income tax rate for millionaires and it will just add to the deficit.

Cut the payroll tax, expand EITC, further expand the Child Tax Credit or the standard deduction, give more tax benefits to small business and raise the minimum wage in conjunction, or use it to put money in the highway trust fund, anything would be more useful than cutting top rates for millionaires and billionaires.

[riceowl]

So the Dems are now defending a tax deduction that disproportionally favors the wealthy. Why would you do that when you could also vote for a tax cut that disproportionally favors the wealthy ?

It's actually not that incompatible. SALT is used more by middle- to upper-middle-income earners in these suburbs (and yes, the super rich, but the middle income earners outnumber the super rich in the beneficiaries group). This would likely still bring taxes up on people already highly taxed in those states while not closing any real loopholes and slashing income taxes across the board for every other bracket.

Anyway, why would a political committee not do this? Isn't the point of committees to win elections?

Right. Also, a cap on the SALT deduction wouldn't be a horrible idea, but getting rid of it would be so stupid. Texas doesn't even have a state income tax, but does have high property taxes. It's not commonly on the list of high-tax blue states. There are tons of people here that would be affected by that.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

So the Dems are now defending a tax deduction that disproportionally favors the wealthy. Why would you do that when you could also vote for a tax cut that disproportionally favors the wealthy ?

It's actually not that incompatible. SALT is used more by middle- to upper-middle-income earners in these suburbs (and yes, the super rich, but the middle income earners outnumber the super rich in the beneficiaries group). This would likely still bring taxes up on people already highly taxed in those states while not closing any real loopholes and slashing income taxes across the board for every other bracket.

Anyway, why would a political committee not do this? Isn't the point of committees to win elections?

Right. Also, a cap on the SALT deduction wouldn't be a horrible idea, but getting rid of it would be so stupid. Texas doesn't even have a state income tax, but does have high property taxes. It's not commonly on the list of high-tax blue states. There are tons of people here that would be affected by that.

Without the deduction, you're also taxed twice on the same income. SALT really should be a credit, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

[mvd10]

So the Dems are now defending a tax deduction that disproportionally favors the wealthy. Why would you do that when you could also vote for a tax cut that disproportionally favors the wealthy ?

It's actually not that incompatible. SALT is used more by middle- to upper-middle-income earners in these suburbs (and yes, the super rich, but the middle income earners outnumber the super rich in the beneficiaries group). This would likely still bring taxes up on people already highly taxed in those states while not closing any real loopholes and slashing income taxes across the board for every other bracket.

Anyway, why would a political committee not do this? Isn't the point of committees to win elections?

It was a joke, but you're right that it's politically smart to do this. And even though it's not as lopsided as some other charitable itemized deductions it's still the wealthy who benefit the most from the SALT deduction if you look at after tax income. But you're right that there are a lot of upper middle-class people who benefit from the SALT deduction.

Anyway, I'd rather see them eliminate the mortgage interest deduction since the mortgage interest deduction really doesn't have any rationale (while the SALT deduction atleast prevents double taxation).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So the Dems are now defending a tax deduction that disproportionally favors the wealthy. Why would you do that when you could also vote for a tax cut that disproportionally favors the wealthy ?

It's actually not that incompatible. SALT is used more by middle- to upper-middle-income earners in these suburbs (and yes, the super rich, but the middle income earners outnumber the super rich in the beneficiaries group). This would likely still bring taxes up on people already highly taxed in those states while not closing any real loopholes and slashing income taxes across the board for every other bracket.

Anyway, why would a political committee not do this? Isn't the point of committees to win elections?

It was a joke, but you're right that it's politically smart to do this. And even though it's not as lopsided as some other charitable deductions it's still the wealthy who benefit the most from the SALT deduction if you look at after tax income. But you're right that there are a lot of upper middle-class people who benefit from the SALT deduction.

Anyway, I'd rather see them eliminate the mortgage interest deduction since the mortgage interest deduction really doesn't have any rationale (while the SALT deduction atleast prevents double taxation).

Because of the standard deduction change, the number of homes that would qualify, that wouldn't also qualify and do better under the expanded Standard deduction, drops by 78% according to one article I saw. So the number of people using the Mortgage Interest deduction will decline substantially anyway.

[Frodo]

Study: GOP tax plan would cost $2.4 trillion

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Hill

[Blue3]

I hate how they project things over a decade.

Especially when not saying how much revenue/expenditures are expected to be over a decade, if left unchanged, in the same sentence.

It was misleading in the Obama years, and it's still misleading now.

[mvd10]

Their study isn't complete though. They didn't model repealing some business tax expenditures or limiting the interest deduction because Trump didn't specify how he wanted to limit/repeal those deductions, but these measures could easily raise more than $1 trillion over a decade (then again, it's Trump's fault that he wasn't specific).

[mvd10]

Republicans seem to be considering adding another income tax rate for very wealthy people to pay for their proposals

I think this is a good idea. It really doesn't matter much whether the top rate is 39.6% or 35% imo (though I oppose actually raising the top rate above 40%). Reforming the corporate tax system is the most important thing. And perhaps some Democrats will be tempted by a tax plan that keeps income taxes on high incomes the same (though high incomes probably still will benefit from the massive corporate tax cut of which a large part probably would go to shareholders).

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Republicans are compromising on SALT: House GOP concedes on property tax deduction

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/29/news/economy/state-and-local-tax-deduction/index.html