$1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread

[Tintrlvr]

If a tax cut plan does pass, I'd rather it be this one:

Middle class biggest winners in Senate tax plan, study says

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/12/tax-middle-class-republicans-244815

Does this tax plan still tax graduate students for their tuition remission?

It's a mixed bag. 

Yeah, there's no way I can support this travesty of a bill. Getting taxed for nearly $50k on the $16k you're actually earning is just simply not feasible.

So what you're saying is that a year of grad school isn't actually worth the $30+ sticker price? Regardless of whether it's feasible, there's no denying that it is income. Income is not the same as cash flow. This is far from the most painful example of that. If you get a debt cancelled because the lender figures you'll never pay them back, the debt cancellation is treated as taxable income and Uncle Sam has ways of making you pay that aren't available to private lenders.

Well:

1) No, it's not worth it, but that's not the issue at hand.
2) It is not income. I am not seeing that money, and I don't have the ability to invest it or use it as I wish as if it were actual income.
3) This is not a debt cancellation; this is a waving of charging you something (100% discount). By your logic, states should start taxing coupon sales and the like (Buy 1, Get 1 Free [+taxes on what you didn't pay]). Got a discount? Pay taxes on the full price even though the price you're paying is lower. It's ridiculous.

Properly, this is how taxes should work: discounts, sales and rebates (whether a holiday sale at a retailer or a discount you receive as part of your compensation for employment) should be taxed. Otherwise, you incentivize compensating people with discounts, sales and rebates over income. The problem is that it is sometimes very difficult to figure out exactly how much a discount, sale or rebated item should be taxed or to assign it a value, especially when a large portion of such products are offered at a discount price. But the theory of the bill is absolutely 100% correct.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Whether we should spend more on education (and I agree we should) is a separate issue as to whether we do the spending via the tax code. In general, we should get rid of tax expenditures.

Besides, I've seen this argument before. It used to be that even the cash you were getting was tax-free. Taxing it would destroy higher education said the higher education lobbyists. Doesn't look too destroyed, does it?

[Dr. Arch]

If a tax cut plan does pass, I'd rather it be this one:

Middle class biggest winners in Senate tax plan, study says

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/12/tax-middle-class-republicans-244815

Does this tax plan still tax graduate students for their tuition remission?

It's a mixed bag.  

Yeah, there's no way I can support this travesty of a bill. Getting taxed for nearly $50k on the $16k you're actually earning is just simply not feasible.

So what you're saying is that a year of grad school isn't actually worth the $30+ sticker price? Regardless of whether it's feasible, there's no denying that it is income. Income is not the same as cash flow. This is far from the most painful example of that. If you get a debt cancelled because the lender figures you'll never pay them back, the debt cancellation is treated as taxable income and Uncle Sam has ways of making you pay that aren't available to private lenders.

Well:

1) No, it's not worth it, but that's not the issue at hand.
2) It is not income. I am not seeing that money, and I don't have the ability to invest it or use it as I wish as if it were actual income.
3) This is not a debt cancellation; this is a waving of charging you something (100% discount). By your logic, states should start taxing coupon sales and the like (Buy 1, Get 1 Free [+taxes on what you didn't pay]). Got a discount? Pay taxes on the full price even though the price you're paying is lower. It's ridiculous.

Properly, this is how taxes should work: discounts, sales and rebates (whether a holiday sale at a retailer or a discount you receive as part of your compensation for employment) should be taxed. Otherwise, you incentivize compensating people with discounts, sales and rebates over income. The problem is that it is sometimes very difficult to figure out exactly how much a discount, sale or rebated item should be taxed or to assign it a value, especially when a large portion of such products are offered at a discount price. But the theory of the bill is absolutely 100% correct.

The bill is purposefully targeting one population. If they're going to start doing this, they have to do it across the board if they're being honest about it. As it is, it's about punishing a group of people they don't like, who are already incredibly disadvantaged fiscally because of how out of control tuition is.

Whether we should spend more on education (and I agree we should) is a separate issue as to whether we do the spending via the tax code. In general, we should get rid of tax expenditures.

Besides, I've seen this argument before. It used to be that even the cash you were getting was tax-free. Taxing it would destroy higher education said the higher education lobbyists. Doesn't look too destroyed, does it?

Well, you tell me, based on the information I've given you, how am I supposed to live with that kind of a tax burden? I'm all for taxing appropriately and for the right purposes, but this is abuse.

An institution can survive fiscal blows due to sheer size and budget, but an individual and overworked graduate student will not. Institutions depend on grad students to keep them running.

[Ban my account ffs!]

They don't care Arch.  They already made up their minds, and they don't care.  I know it is incredibly frustrating because of the scary implications this tax bill will have for you... but they don't care.

[Tintrlvr]

If a tax cut plan does pass, I'd rather it be this one:

Middle class biggest winners in Senate tax plan, study says

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/12/tax-middle-class-republicans-244815

Does this tax plan still tax graduate students for their tuition remission?

It's a mixed bag.  

Yeah, there's no way I can support this travesty of a bill. Getting taxed for nearly $50k on the $16k you're actually earning is just simply not feasible.

So what you're saying is that a year of grad school isn't actually worth the $30+ sticker price? Regardless of whether it's feasible, there's no denying that it is income. Income is not the same as cash flow. This is far from the most painful example of that. If you get a debt cancelled because the lender figures you'll never pay them back, the debt cancellation is treated as taxable income and Uncle Sam has ways of making you pay that aren't available to private lenders.

Well:

1) No, it's not worth it, but that's not the issue at hand.
2) It is not income. I am not seeing that money, and I don't have the ability to invest it or use it as I wish as if it were actual income.
3) This is not a debt cancellation; this is a waving of charging you something (100% discount). By your logic, states should start taxing coupon sales and the like (Buy 1, Get 1 Free [+taxes on what you didn't pay]). Got a discount? Pay taxes on the full price even though the price you're paying is lower. It's ridiculous.

Properly, this is how taxes should work: discounts, sales and rebates (whether a holiday sale at a retailer or a discount you receive as part of your compensation for employment) should be taxed. Otherwise, you incentivize compensating people with discounts, sales and rebates over income. The problem is that it is sometimes very difficult to figure out exactly how much a discount, sale or rebated item should be taxed or to assign it a value, especially when a large portion of such products are offered at a discount price. But the theory of the bill is absolutely 100% correct.

The bill is purposefully targeting one population. If they're going to start doing this, they have to do it across the board if they're being honest about it. As it is, it's about punishing a group of people they don't like, who are already incredibly disadvantaged fiscally because of how out of control tuition is.

You were making a philosophical tax argument: that it would be absurd to charge tax on discounts and sales. But, of course, it's not only not absurd, it's actually quite sensible. Agree that this bill picks and chooses (and shouldn't do so), but that doesn't change the philosophical argument.

[Ban my account ffs!]

If a tax cut plan does pass, I'd rather it be this one:

Middle class biggest winners in Senate tax plan, study says

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/12/tax-middle-class-republicans-244815

Does this tax plan still tax graduate students for their tuition remission?

It's a mixed bag. 

Yeah, there's no way I can support this travesty of a bill. Getting taxed for nearly $50k on the $16k you're actually earning is just simply not feasible.

So what you're saying is that a year of grad school isn't actually worth the $30+ sticker price? Regardless of whether it's feasible, there's no denying that it is income. Income is not the same as cash flow. This is far from the most painful example of that. If you get a debt cancelled because the lender figures you'll never pay them back, the debt cancellation is treated as taxable income and Uncle Sam has ways of making you pay that aren't available to private lenders.

Well:

1) No, it's not worth it, but that's not the issue at hand.
2) It is not income. I am not seeing that money, and I don't have the ability to invest it or use it as I wish as if it were actual income.
3) This is not a debt cancellation; this is a waving of charging you something (100% discount). By your logic, states should start taxing coupon sales and the like (Buy 1, Get 1 Free [+taxes on what you didn't pay]). Got a discount? Pay taxes on the full price even though the price you're paying is lower. It's ridiculous.

Properly, this is how taxes should work: discounts, sales and rebates (whether a holiday sale at a retailer or a discount you receive as part of your compensation for employment) should be taxed. Otherwise, you incentivize compensating people with discounts, sales and rebates over income. The problem is that it is sometimes very difficult to figure out exactly how much a discount, sale or rebated item should be taxed or to assign it a value, especially when a large portion of such products are offered at a discount price. But the theory of the bill is absolutely 100% correct.

The bill is purposefully targeting one population. If they're going to start doing this, they have to do it across the board if they're being honest about it. As it is, it's about punishing a group of people they don't like, who are already incredibly disadvantaged fiscally because of how out of control tuition is.

You were making a philosophical tax argument: that it would be absurd to charge tax on discounts and sales. But, of course, it's not only not absurd, it's actually quite sensible. Agree that this bill picks and chooses (and shouldn't do so), but that doesn't change the philosophical argument.

Do you have to insist on making arguments like you're living in a vacuum?  Logic dictates that these policies have negative impacts on struggling populations... yet you're worried about the philosophical argument.  Get out of your head.

[Devout Centrist]

Whatever abomination might make it to Trump's desk, I'm willing to bet that it will not be the Senate bill.

[Tintrlvr]

If a tax cut plan does pass, I'd rather it be this one:

Middle class biggest winners in Senate tax plan, study says

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/12/tax-middle-class-republicans-244815

Does this tax plan still tax graduate students for their tuition remission?

It's a mixed bag.  

Yeah, there's no way I can support this travesty of a bill. Getting taxed for nearly $50k on the $16k you're actually earning is just simply not feasible.

So what you're saying is that a year of grad school isn't actually worth the $30+ sticker price? Regardless of whether it's feasible, there's no denying that it is income. Income is not the same as cash flow. This is far from the most painful example of that. If you get a debt cancelled because the lender figures you'll never pay them back, the debt cancellation is treated as taxable income and Uncle Sam has ways of making you pay that aren't available to private lenders.

Well:

1) No, it's not worth it, but that's not the issue at hand.
2) It is not income. I am not seeing that money, and I don't have the ability to invest it or use it as I wish as if it were actual income.
3) This is not a debt cancellation; this is a waving of charging you something (100% discount). By your logic, states should start taxing coupon sales and the like (Buy 1, Get 1 Free [+taxes on what you didn't pay]). Got a discount? Pay taxes on the full price even though the price you're paying is lower. It's ridiculous.

Properly, this is how taxes should work: discounts, sales and rebates (whether a holiday sale at a retailer or a discount you receive as part of your compensation for employment) should be taxed. Otherwise, you incentivize compensating people with discounts, sales and rebates over income. The problem is that it is sometimes very difficult to figure out exactly how much a discount, sale or rebated item should be taxed or to assign it a value, especially when a large portion of such products are offered at a discount price. But the theory of the bill is absolutely 100% correct.

The bill is purposefully targeting one population. If they're going to start doing this, they have to do it across the board if they're being honest about it. As it is, it's about punishing a group of people they don't like, who are already incredibly disadvantaged fiscally because of how out of control tuition is.

You were making a philosophical tax argument: that it would be absurd to charge tax on discounts and sales. But, of course, it's not only not absurd, it's actually quite sensible. Agree that this bill picks and chooses (and shouldn't do so), but that doesn't change the philosophical argument.

Do you have to insist on making arguments like you're living in a vacuum?  Logic dictates that these policies have negative impacts on struggling populations... yet you're worried about the philosophical argument.  Get out of your head.

I wasn't the one who made the philosophical argument in the first place. But apparently now we think posting on an Internet politics forum will influence the outcome of the Republicans' tax bill such that our posts are so important that we can't make theoretical arguments.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You're right.  What we argue here will not affect the outcome of the bill.  But it is a good idea to recognize when someone is distressed about something and acknowledge that even if you disagree and make an argument to the contrary.

That is just basic human decency, which does, in fact, matter here.

[Tintrlvr]

You're right.  What we argue here will not affect the outcome of the bill.  But it is a good idea to recognize when someone is distressed about something and acknowledge that even if you disagree and make an argument to the contrary.

That is just basic human decency, which does, in fact, matter here.

I'll rely on Arch to say that they found my post hurtful or offensive rather than randoms jumping in to make hostile accusations for the sake of fighting about it.

[Dr. Arch]

You're right.  What we argue here will not affect the outcome of the bill.  But it is a good idea to recognize when someone is distressed about something and acknowledge that even if you disagree and make an argument to the contrary.

That is just basic human decency, which does, in fact, matter here.

I'll rely on Arch to say that they found my post hurtful or offensive rather than randoms jumping in to make hostile accusations for the sake of fighting about it.

I don't think it was hurtful or offensive, but I found it rather insensitive, given that you're talking to a member who's directly affected by this.

In any case, the intent was not to engage in a dialogue devoid of context, but rather contextualize this change within the current paradigm of the status quo in the United States. If it applies to one, it should apply to all. This tax code change is a political hit on a currently-impoverished group of future professionals that this country will rely on.

[Tintrlvr]

You're right.  What we argue here will not affect the outcome of the bill.  But it is a good idea to recognize when someone is distressed about something and acknowledge that even if you disagree and make an argument to the contrary.

That is just basic human decency, which does, in fact, matter here.

I'll rely on Arch to say that they found my post hurtful or offensive rather than randoms jumping in to make hostile accusations for the sake of fighting about it.

I don't think it was hurtful or offensive, but I found it rather insensitive, given that you're talking to a member who's directly affected by this.

In any case, the intent was not to engage in a dialogue devoid of context, but rather contextualize this change within the current paradigm of the status quo in the United States. If it applies to one, it should apply to all. This tax code change is a political hit on a currently-impoverished group of future professionals that this country will rely on.

Fair enough, and I agree that equal treatment is appropriate. Although my understanding is that what is proposed to be eliminated is a special exception for education, and other types of discounts provided by employers as compensation are already taxed as income, though the law is quite complicated. It seems to me that graduate discounts may mostly continue not to be taxed as no-additional-cost services as long as the classes would run regardless of whether the graduate students receiving the discount were present or not.

http://idahobusinessreview.com/2012/09/13/talking-tax-employee-discounts-can-be-taxable-income/

[Dr. Arch]

You're right.  What we argue here will not affect the outcome of the bill.  But it is a good idea to recognize when someone is distressed about something and acknowledge that even if you disagree and make an argument to the contrary.

That is just basic human decency, which does, in fact, matter here.

I'll rely on Arch to say that they found my post hurtful or offensive rather than randoms jumping in to make hostile accusations for the sake of fighting about it.

I don't think it was hurtful or offensive, but I found it rather insensitive, given that you're talking to a member who's directly affected by this.

In any case, the intent was not to engage in a dialogue devoid of context, but rather contextualize this change within the current paradigm of the status quo in the United States. If it applies to one, it should apply to all. This tax code change is a political hit on a currently-impoverished group of future professionals that this country will rely on.

Fair enough, and I agree that equal treatment is appropriate. Although my understanding is that what is proposed to be eliminated is a special exception for education, and other types of discounts provided by employers as compensation are already taxed as income.

http://idahobusinessreview.com/2012/09/13/talking-tax-employee-discounts-can-be-taxable-income/

Would this really count as a "discount"? It's a waiver, rather than a reduction.

[Tintrlvr]

You're right.  What we argue here will not affect the outcome of the bill.  But it is a good idea to recognize when someone is distressed about something and acknowledge that even if you disagree and make an argument to the contrary.

That is just basic human decency, which does, in fact, matter here.

I'll rely on Arch to say that they found my post hurtful or offensive rather than randoms jumping in to make hostile accusations for the sake of fighting about it.

I don't think it was hurtful or offensive, but I found it rather insensitive, given that you're talking to a member who's directly affected by this.

In any case, the intent was not to engage in a dialogue devoid of context, but rather contextualize this change within the current paradigm of the status quo in the United States. If it applies to one, it should apply to all. This tax code change is a political hit on a currently-impoverished group of future professionals that this country will rely on.

Fair enough, and I agree that equal treatment is appropriate. Although my understanding is that what is proposed to be eliminated is a special exception for education, and other types of discounts provided by employers as compensation are already taxed as income.

http://idahobusinessreview.com/2012/09/13/talking-tax-employee-discounts-can-be-taxable-income/

Would this really count as a "discount"? It's a waiver, rather than a reduction.

Seems like the same thing as a 100% discount to me. I'm sure the exception was originally crafted because the impact on education is quite onerous (where most other fields don't offer such large discounts).

On the other hand, the existence of the special tax treatment has probably resulted in universities exploiting the loophole to their benefit. Economically, the change may result in universities paying graduate students the amount of the waiver (and the taxes now owed thereon), or even more, then charging for tuition, which should overall leave graduate students neutral or even better off. But the universities were the real beneficiaries before since it cost them less to offer discounted tuition than it would have to pay graduate students the tuition plus tax (if far enough less, i.e., if most of the classes were classes that would have run with excess capacity, I think there will be a plausible argument that the benefit isn't taxable anyway).

[Kingpoleon]

Hey, I just found a tax plan when I was making something on Pastebin:

https://pastebin.com/napnpULm

Seems to have a bit of a... noticeable title, though.

[Tintrlvr]

Hey, I just found a tax plan when I was making something on Pastebin:

https://pastebin.com/napnpULm

Seems to have a bit of a... noticeable title, though.

Interesting that they apparently contemplated a federal sales tax. To replace corporate tax entirely?

[Kingpoleon]

Hey, I just found a tax plan when I was making something on Pastebin:

https://pastebin.com/napnpULm

Seems to have a bit of a... noticeable title, though.

Interesting that they apparently contemplated a federal sales tax. To replace corporate tax entirely?

Not sure. It’s an oddly worded memo, but I suspect the sales tax makes up for the tax cuts or something of the sort. I’m fairly certain they wouldn’t eliminate the corporate tax.

[Frodo]

If a tax cut plan does pass, I'd rather it be this one:

Middle class biggest winners in Senate tax plan, study says

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/12/tax-middle-class-republicans-244815

But wait, there's a wrinkle:

Bipartisan analysis: Senate bill would hike taxes for 13.8M

By MARCY GORDON, Associated Press

WASHINGTON —

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

As Orrin Hatch detailed at today's committee hearing, there's no way to write a tax plan that affects every taxpayer the same way. This plan likely benefits the large majority of the middle class, and that is the goal. Somebody will end up on the wrong end of any plan, not necessarily intentionally  - even a simplified tax code remains complex. I'm sure if the democrats controlled congress and were trying to rewrite the tax code, we'd be reading about some non-super-rich population ending up with an increase as well. Rewriting the tax code is extraordinarily tough and politically costly, which is why it doesn't happen very often. While the house plan is a disaster that would serve to increase taxes on the poor while the middle class breaks even at best, and also contains an unacceptable effective top tax rate of 47%, the senate plan is clearly much better. I'm not saying the senate plan is perfect - far from it. I wish that it didn't increase the deficit or remove SALT. But few things are perfect. I commend Senate Republicans for coming up with, and hopefully uniting on, a decent plan that I believe will help the clear majority of middle class americans.

That being said, while my activism for or against stuff on here probably doesn't matter, putting changes to ObamaCare mandates into the bill would cause me to pull my support and urge opposition. ObamaCare is a separate issue that must be debated separately, and pulling the individual mandate with no adequate replacement would likely directly lead to the deaths of millions of americans due to loss of access to affordable insurance.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Hatch wants a vote on eliminating double taxation on dividends, while also eliminating the deduction preventing double taxation on SALT. I support eliminating double taxation on dividends, as this policy introduces a number economic inefficiencies (including the promotion of debt over equity in funding an enterprise, which the Code should not do), but to eliminate one form of double taxation while introducing another is patently ridiculous and clearly politically motivated.

The Republican caucus also wants to include a deduction for contributions to private, religious schools while removing the deduction for property taxes, which fund public schools. Which, again, is introducing a new form of double taxation, while at the same time introducing more complexity into the Code.

This plan is in no way about a simplified code or a more justified system; it is instead a plan that rewards those who vote Republican and who donate to Republicans at the expense of those who do not.

My clear preference here would be to simplify corporate taxes in a deficit neutral manner, which has the potential to deliver marginal economic gains. There are clear giveaways in the code and some goodies that can be axed in exchange for a rate drop into the mid to high 20's, which would indeed keep the US competitive in a global landscape.

The individual rewrite, however, is clearly not about efficiency or simplicity or economic gains. It is about punishing Democratic voters at the expense of chiefly Republican donors. Which I cannot abide.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I just got a POLITICO alert that the "Senate GOP [is] strongly consider[ing] adding Obamacare mandate repeal to tax bill". Wow, these guys are really trying to tank the one thing they actually have a chance of passing.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I just got a POLITICO alert that the "Senate GOP [is] strongly consider[ing] adding Obamacare mandate repeal to tax bill". Wow, these guys are really trying to tank the one thing they actually have a chance of passing.

Lol what a bunch of incompetent boobs

[MasterJedi]

I just got a POLITICO alert that the "Senate GOP [is] strongly consider[ing] adding Obamacare mandate repeal to tax bill". Wow, these guys are really trying to tank the one thing they actually have a chance of passing.

Lol what a bunch of incompetent boobs

Good, kill Obamacare Repeal a third time and then kill the normal people tax increase bill.

[Yank2133]

These people are going to lose 40+ seats next year.

Gutting the ACA to fund tax cuts for rich folks sounds like a smart thing to run on.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Mandate repeal accepted by committee

 https://nyti.ms/2jqD6W7