$1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The vast majority of deductions are special interests at work, with a handful of exceptions. However, cutting the income tax rates is fiscally insane, and raising them is politically suicidal.  Cutting at deductions would be fine, though. That said, we really, really need to find a new way of raising money.

We really should be cutting the corporate rate though. But it is insane to not cut the taxes on small business at the same time and it is political suicide to cut business taxes and not poor people and the middle class.

So rates end up coming down for most of the individual brackets by necessity.

I'm not sure if this is simply a terminology difference, but there isn't a special "small business" rate, other than corporate rates progressively increasing based on an enterprise's income.

Any current business is plenty capable of paying $150 to incorporate in Delaware and availing itself of any lower corporate rate, whether the business has gross receipts of $100K or $100M.

The general political calculation seems reasonable and makes sense to me, but I'm just not sure where this idea that cutting the rate on partnerships = small business cut when that really just isn't the case. Any semi-savvy operator would just incorporate the business and take advantage of those rates.

Which is why I really think that the end result of this tax package exercise will be a moderate rate cut across the board (think down to 29% corporate rate, similar cuts for individuals) with a few revenue raisers to help neutralize any talking points about benefits accruing to the top 1%.

The post was about political optics. Of course they can incorporate to get that lower rate.

I would prefer a 25% corporate tax rate with far more aggressive approaches to things like the Carried interest deductions and hedge funds generally.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Upper middle class is 90k-250k

LMAO. Half of Americans make less than $30k per year; 71% less than $50k per year. To be in the literal Top 1%, all you need to do is earn $250k per year.

Your "upper middle class" figure basically applies to the top 10% of income earners minus the wealthiest 1%. There's nothing "middle" (and certainly not "median") about being in the top 10%.

And anybody who has a $500,000 house is f@%king rich, much less one million.

Inaccurate. Many homes in NoVA or even in southern VA cost this much for a small house. Also, I know folks who had like a 2 bedroom in SD and 500K would barely get you that out there. Home value, although somewhat indicative of overall income, is a wildly misleading indicator depending on the area of the country being discussed.

Just on the principle, a 500,000 home is about $1,500 a month on a 30 year mortgage. At the very least we are talking upper middle class. No one, who is lower middle class or working class can can afford that and anyone who does have one will more then likely lose it before they ever get close to paying it off.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

The vast majority of deductions are special interests at work, with a handful of exceptions. However, cutting the income tax rates is fiscally insane, and raising them is politically suicidal.  Cutting at deductions would be fine, though. That said, we really, really need to find a new way of raising money.

We really should be cutting the corporate rate though. But it is insane to not cut the taxes on small business at the same time and it is political suicide to cut business taxes and not poor people and the middle class.

So rates end up coming down for most of the individual brackets by necessity.

I'm not sure if this is simply a terminology difference, but there isn't a special "small business" rate, other than corporate rates progressively increasing based on an enterprise's income.

Any current business is plenty capable of paying $150 to incorporate in Delaware and availing itself of any lower corporate rate, whether the business has gross receipts of $100K or $100M.

The general political calculation seems reasonable and makes sense to me, but I'm just not sure where this idea that cutting the rate on partnerships = small business cut when that really just isn't the case. Any semi-savvy operator would just incorporate the business and take advantage of those rates.

Which is why I really think that the end result of this tax package exercise will be a moderate rate cut across the board (think down to 29% corporate rate, similar cuts for individuals) with a few revenue raisers to help neutralize any talking points about benefits accruing to the top 1%.

The post was about political optics. Of course they can incorporate to get that lower rate.

That's what I figured, but it's a common mistake when folks discuss taxes and I wanted to make sure we were on the same page

I would prefer a 25% corporate tax rate with far more aggressive approaches to things like the Carried interest deductions and hedge funds generally.

Agreed generally, but there just isn't enough revenue in those two things to make up for the lost revenue from lowering rates. The policy ideal would be a marginally lower corporate rate (in the 25-30% range) while removing some popular but no longer really necessary corporate deductions.

The corporate reform would, in an ideal world, be packaged separate from individual reform, allowing enough moderate Dems to sign on to make it something that'd be permanent, which would provide stability that businesses desire in reform.

[Tintrlvr]

Upper middle class is 90k-250k

LMAO. Half of Americans make less than $30k per year; 71% less than $50k per year. To be in the literal Top 1%, all you need to do is earn $250k per year.

Your "upper middle class" figure basically applies to the top 10% of income earners minus the wealthiest 1%. There's nothing "middle" (and certainly not "median") about being in the top 10%.

And anybody who has a $500,000 house is f@%king rich, much less one million.

Inaccurate. Many homes in NoVA or even in southern VA cost this much for a small house. Also, I know folks who had like a 2 bedroom in SD and 500K would barely get you that out there. Home value, although somewhat indicative of overall income, is a wildly misleading indicator depending on the area of the country being discussed.

Just on the principle, a 500,000 home is about $1,500 a month on a 30 year mortgage. At the very least we are talking upper middle class. No one, who is lower middle class or working class can can afford that and anyone who does have one will more then likely lose it before they ever get close to paying it off.

There are plenty of people paying more than $1,500 a month in rent here in NYC on $40k incomes who would disagree with your position that there aren't middle- to lower-income people with those types of monthly outlays for housing. (Ownership rates are much lower in NYC, of course, but you'll find comparable people with mortgages in places like NOVA or California, or even NYC suburbs.)

Whether they "can" "afford" it is a semantic question since these are often homes at the very lower bound of prices: they either have to move out of the high-cost area, or they suck it up and pay nearly half of their gross income in housing outlays. The mortgage interest deduction is only a part of the problem here (and I'd be an advocate for eliminating it entirely), but you are clearly mistaken. In some parts of the country, housing costs make up an extraordinary portion of gross income, sometimes over 50%.

[Tintrlvr]

The vast majority of deductions are special interests at work, with a handful of exceptions. However, cutting the income tax rates is fiscally insane, and raising them is politically suicidal.  Cutting at deductions would be fine, though. That said, we really, really need to find a new way of raising money.

We really should be cutting the corporate rate though. But it is insane to not cut the taxes on small business at the same time and it is political suicide to cut business taxes and not poor people and the middle class.

So rates end up coming down for most of the individual brackets by necessity.

I'm not sure if this is simply a terminology difference, but there isn't a special "small business" rate, other than corporate rates progressively increasing based on an enterprise's income.

Any current business is plenty capable of paying $150 to incorporate in Delaware and availing itself of any lower corporate rate, whether the business has gross receipts of $100K or $100M.

The general political calculation seems reasonable and makes sense to me, but I'm just not sure where this idea that cutting the rate on partnerships = small business cut when that really just isn't the case. Any semi-savvy operator would just incorporate the business and take advantage of those rates.

Which is why I really think that the end result of this tax package exercise will be a moderate rate cut across the board (think down to 29% corporate rate, similar cuts for individuals) with a few revenue raisers to help neutralize any talking points about benefits accruing to the top 1%.

The post was about political optics. Of course they can incorporate to get that lower rate.

That's what I figured, but it's a common mistake when folks discuss taxes and I wanted to make sure we were on the same page

I would prefer a 25% corporate tax rate with far more aggressive approaches to things like the Carried interest deductions and hedge funds generally.

Agreed generally, but there just isn't enough revenue in those two things to make up for the lost revenue from lowering rates. The policy ideal would be a marginally lower corporate rate (in the 25-30% range) while removing some popular but no longer really necessary corporate deductions.

The corporate reform would, in an ideal world, be packaged separate from individual reform, allowing enough moderate Dems to sign on to make it something that'd be permanent, which would provide stability that businesses desire in reform.

Eliminating the separate brackets for capital gains (which takes care of carried interest as well) is the obvious low-hanging fruit to pair with corporate tax cuts.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I would add a one time 30% wealth tax on overseas havens 

[Deblano]

just pass the plan you outlined please . Its a a good tax plan , please dont ruin it.

Too late.

What an embarrassment. And there were some stuff in that plan that I liked to. But they have to crap the bed once again. SAD! 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Upper middle class is 90k-250k

LMAO. Half of Americans make less than $30k per year; 71% less than $50k per year. To be in the literal Top 1%, all you need to do is earn $250k per year.

Your "upper middle class" figure basically applies to the top 10% of income earners minus the wealthiest 1%. There's nothing "middle" (and certainly not "median") about being in the top 10%.

And anybody who has a $500,000 house is f@%king rich, much less one million.

Inaccurate. Many homes in NoVA or even in southern VA cost this much for a small house. Also, I know folks who had like a 2 bedroom in SD and 500K would barely get you that out there. Home value, although somewhat indicative of overall income, is a wildly misleading indicator depending on the area of the country being discussed.

Just on the principle, a 500,000 home is about $1,500 a month on a 30 year mortgage. At the very least we are talking upper middle class. No one, who is lower middle class or working class can can afford that and anyone who does have one will more then likely lose it before they ever get close to paying it off.

There are plenty of people paying more than $1,500 a month in rent here in NYC on $40k incomes who would disagree with your position that there aren't middle- to lower-income people with those types of monthly outlays for housing. (Ownership rates are much lower in NYC, of course, but you'll find comparable people with mortgages in places like NOVA or California, or even NYC suburbs.)

Whether they "can" "afford" it is a semantic question since these are often homes at the very lower bound of prices: they either have to move out of the high-cost area, or they suck it up and pay nearly half of their gross income in housing outlays. The mortgage interest deduction is only a part of the problem here (and I'd be an advocate for eliminating it entirely), but you are clearly mistaken. In some parts of the country, housing costs make up an extraordinary portion of gross income, sometimes over 50%.

And people wonder why housing crashed so hard. These are unsustainable levels of gross income being put towards housing.

[Tintrlvr]

Upper middle class is 90k-250k

LMAO. Half of Americans make less than $30k per year; 71% less than $50k per year. To be in the literal Top 1%, all you need to do is earn $250k per year.

Your "upper middle class" figure basically applies to the top 10% of income earners minus the wealthiest 1%. There's nothing "middle" (and certainly not "median") about being in the top 10%.

And anybody who has a $500,000 house is f@%king rich, much less one million.

Inaccurate. Many homes in NoVA or even in southern VA cost this much for a small house. Also, I know folks who had like a 2 bedroom in SD and 500K would barely get you that out there. Home value, although somewhat indicative of overall income, is a wildly misleading indicator depending on the area of the country being discussed.

Just on the principle, a 500,000 home is about $1,500 a month on a 30 year mortgage. At the very least we are talking upper middle class. No one, who is lower middle class or working class can can afford that and anyone who does have one will more then likely lose it before they ever get close to paying it off.

There are plenty of people paying more than $1,500 a month in rent here in NYC on $40k incomes who would disagree with your position that there aren't middle- to lower-income people with those types of monthly outlays for housing. (Ownership rates are much lower in NYC, of course, but you'll find comparable people with mortgages in places like NOVA or California, or even NYC suburbs.)

Whether they "can" "afford" it is a semantic question since these are often homes at the very lower bound of prices: they either have to move out of the high-cost area, or they suck it up and pay nearly half of their gross income in housing outlays. The mortgage interest deduction is only a part of the problem here (and I'd be an advocate for eliminating it entirely), but you are clearly mistaken. In some parts of the country, housing costs make up an extraordinary portion of gross income, sometimes over 50%.

And people wonder why housing crashed so hard. These are unsustainable levels of gross income being put towards housing.

Yes, although these areas are not the same areas that crashed in the housing crisis. Unlike in 2006 Nevada, Arizona or Florida, where the soaring prices were primarily the result of speculation, the fundamentals supporting elevated prices in high-cost areas of the country are quite stable. These are places with strong economies (based on industries other than housing construction) that therefore have very high demand but are nonetheless for a variety of reasons not producing much new housing. It is true that this squeezes low- and some middle-income people until they're close to popping, but it's not a bubble.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Rep Collins on tax package: "My donors are basically saying, 'Get it done or don’t ever call me again.'"

[Doimper]

Rep Collins on tax package: "My donors are basically saying, 'Get it done or don’t ever call me again.'"

Remember when the idea that representatives took marching orders from their donors was something shameful?

[Kingpoleon]

Upper middle class is 90k-250k

LMAO. Half of Americans make less than $30k per year; 71% less than $50k per year. To be in the literal Top 1%, all you need to do is earn $250k per year.

Your "upper middle class" figure basically applies to the top 10% of income earners minus the wealthiest 1%. There's nothing "middle" (and certainly not "median") about being in the top 10%.

And anybody who has a $500,000 house is f@%king rich, much less one million.

Inaccurate. Many homes in NoVA or even in southern VA cost this much for a small house. Also, I know folks who had like a 2 bedroom in SD and 500K would barely get you that out there. Home value, although somewhat indicative of overall income, is a wildly misleading indicator depending on the area of the country being discussed.

Just on the principle, a 500,000 home is about $1,500 a month on a 30 year mortgage. At the very least we are talking upper middle class. No one, who is lower middle class or working class can can afford that and anyone who does have one will more then likely lose it before they ever get close to paying it off.

Yeah... If you can afford a house double the income for the top one percent($500,000), esp. on a ten year mortgage, you are most certainly wealthy relative to the country as a whole.

[Frodo]

Senate GOP tax bill could delay corporate tax cut and make other major changes that break sharply with House plan

You must be logged in to read this quote.

WashPo

[The Dowager Mod]

David Frum
✔
@davidfrum
Emerging GOP conventional wisdom: Nothing went wrong last night that raising taxes on the middle class cannot fix.

[Dr. Arch]

David Frum
✔
@davidfrum
Emerging GOP conventional wisdom: Nothing went wrong last night that raising taxes on the middle class cannot fix.

Great idea... lol

[Brittain33]

Someone compared the Republicans passing a tax cut to a struggling couple having a baby to "save the marriage."

[RINO Tom]

Does this make the tax bill more or less likely to pass? One would think if these incumbents in Orange County and other suburbs saw the results last night that undermines the SUBURBANITES THAT RINO TOM SAYS ARE STILL ROCK-RIBBED REPUBLICAN line that they'd be scared for their political lives

Stop saying I say that, because I don't.  You need to find a new obsession, it's pathetic and weird.

[RINO Tom]

Does this make the tax bill more or less likely to pass? One would think if these incumbents in Orange County and other suburbs saw the results last night that undermines the SUBURBANITES THAT RINO TOM SAYS ARE STILL ROCK-RIBBED REPUBLICAN line that they'd be scared for their political lives

Stop saying I say that, because I don't.  You need to find a new obsession, it's pathetic and weird.

I can literally go back to all the posts you made at the beginning of the year about how "Democrats chasing the college educated white suburbanites is a stupid strategy" if you like

I think it is, as I think there is a decently high floor for the GOP among affluent Whites; it takes a real dumbass to extrapolate that to mean I think they are "rock-ribbed Republican voters," but maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

[RINO Tom]

I don't know if you haven't been laid in months or something, but saying Democrats can't rely on former Republican voters as the bedrock of their party doesn't equate to targeting West Virginia and not targeting an increasingly diversifying Orange County ... PRETTY sure you had that response ready to go before reading anything I posted, LOL.

[The Dowager Mod]

You 2 behave >:I

[RINO Tom]

You 2 behave >:I

Sorry.

[Santander]

If everyone ridicules you for what you say, perhaps you should consider that what you are saying is ridiculous.

[RINO Tom]

If everyone ridicules you for what you say, perhaps you should consider that what you are saying is ridiculous.

You two are the only ones who ridicule my every post, and I think what you have to say is stupid, LOL ... so nope, I don't think I will.

[GeorgiaModerate]

If everyone ridicules you for what you say, perhaps you should consider that what you are saying is ridiculous.

You two are the only ones who ridicule my every post, and I think what you have to say is stupid, LOL ... so nope, I don't think I will.

Actually we're not. You must've missed like four or five other people mocking the SUBURBAN REPUBLICAN meme last night

I hereby dub these Replurbicans.

[RINO Tom]

If everyone ridicules you for what you say, perhaps you should consider that what you are saying is ridiculous.

You two are the only ones who ridicule my every post, and I think what you have to say is stupid, LOL ... so nope, I don't think I will.

Actually we're not. You must've missed like four or five other people mocking the SUBURBAN REPUBLICAN meme last night

Okay, let me rephrase: you put words in my mouth, create a caricature in your head of what I'm like and what I think, and you interpret any post possible as a rebuke of that fake, conjectured person.

I'm going to let this go now, because this is a site I enjoy checking in my free time as a stress reliever from work and other more serious aspects of my life, and I don't particularly enjoy constantly arguing with people and becoming anything other than the relatively easy going and kind person I usually am in real life.  Peace.