$1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread

[Brittain33]

Johnson will fold. No way is he a deciding vote to kill this bill in the end.

[pbrower2a]

This tax cut has one purpose: to further concentrate wealth and power in a tiny segment of the populace, to wit a class that will operate as the land-holding, share-holding, and administrative aristocracies. It punishes any effort of the common man to get ahead by going to college.

It may not be fair, but I see this tax policy as an effort to punish people who failed to recognize the greatness of Donald Trump and the idea that no human suffering is in excess so long as it turns, indulges, or enforces a profit.

We have no shortage of capital. All that I can see is that capital will be cast into efforts to further monopolize the American economy, privatize the public sector (if it can turn a profit), and reward people exclusively for being born into the Right Family.

This is the intended America, the one that I see as the expression of Make America Great Again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#/media/File:Anti-capitalism_color.gif

Sure, that poster dates from 1911, and the technology and style will be very different. Life will of course be great for anyone who isn't a prole. But proles will be the vast majority of the people.   They will suffer whether they are the factory or farm laborers, the domestic servants. the vast majority of people in food service and retail -- and they will be condemned to their lot as serfs in all but name.

Expecting noble behavior from a nobility or quasi-nobility is sheer folly. I recall seeing a story from American Heritage Magazine on how masters saw thee relationship between themselves and their slaves: the masters saw themselves as benefactors to the slaves that they so crassly exploited and degraded.

America will become much like the sorts of places that many of our ancestors left due to the hopelessness of improving life, if not outright danger of persecution, starvation, or massacres.    

[Hindsight was 2020]

The thing that shocks me is certain people here say how suburanties were a deadend for dems because once Trump is gone and the culture warrior stuff dies down they'll go back to the GOP but this almost guarantee the suburbs going dem as now they are going to get hit in the pocketbook by Trump/GOP as well

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I think the fact that they included a repeal of the individual mandate is a sign they don't have the votes to pass it and are now just trying to toss in red meat.  I agree that Ron Johnson won't be the deciding vote, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Senate Republicans already think there's simply not a path to 50 votes due to the various demands of different Senators. 

I could also see Johnson deciding that the bill will probably fail anyway and coming out against it early so he's not perceived as the deciding vote.  That's why the Obamacare repeal bill hurt Heller so much, btw: he waited too long and so all the other folks who were perceived to be potential swing votes (McCain was a surprise and his vote had been taken for granted by Republicans) had already taken a position on the Obamacare repeal bill.  Thus, all eyes were on Heller and it became a lose-lose situation.  This way Johnson won't be viewed as the guy who killed the tax bill if some combination of Paul, Collins, Murkowski, McCain, Corker, and Flake come out against it. 

[pbrower2a]

The thing that shocks me is certain people here say how suburanties were a deadend for dems because once Trump is gone and the culture warrior stuff dies down they'll go back to the GOP but this almost guarantee the suburbs going dem as now they are going to get hit in the pocketbook by Trump/GOP as well

From the 1950s to about the 1990s the suburbs were the core area of support for Republicans. I remember when suburban counties like Orange County in California were the most right-wing areas in America. That's when Suburbia still had a rural feel -- when the suburbs were new, when their infrastructure was cheap to maintain, and before apartment complexes supplanted the bungalows of the immediate post-WWII  era. Today many of those suburbs are legitimately urban. Infrastructure from the late 1940s and 1950s is wearing out, and it requires expensive replacement. Apartment complexes put more vehicles on streets inadequate for the greater traffic, requiring expensive highway projects. What used to be a cheap place to live except for initial costs of housing has become places with high taxes. Such is so whether the urban center nearby is in decline (like Cleveland) or still prosperous (San Francisco).

[Indy Texas]

The thing that shocks me is certain people here say how suburanties were a deadend for dems because once Trump is gone and the culture warrior stuff dies down they'll go back to the GOP but this almost guarantee the suburbs going dem as now they are going to get hit in the pocketbook by Trump/GOP as well

It's bewildering how they seem to be almost trying to foster a realignment along the lines of the 2016 presidential election.

It would be easy for the suburban swing to the Democrats to have just been a fluke owing to a uniquely positioned Republican candidate. But the Republicans in elections this year have been running on the sort of culture war and anti-immigrant policies that offend suburbanites, and now Republicans in Congress seem dead-set on passing a tax bill that amounts to a redistribution of wealth toward the super-rich and business owners and away from the "merely" well-off and white collar salaried professionals.

[Matty]

The thing that shocks me is certain people here say how suburanties were a deadend for dems because once Trump is gone and the culture warrior stuff dies down they'll go back to the GOP but this almost guarantee the suburbs going dem as now they are going to get hit in the pocketbook by Trump/GOP as well

It's bewildering how they seem to be almost trying to foster a realignment along the lines of the 2016 presidential election.

It would be easy for the suburban swing to the Democrats to have just been a fluke owing to a uniquely positioned Republican candidate. But the Republicans in elections this year have been running on the sort of culture war and anti-immigrant policies that offend suburbanites, and now Republicans in Congress seem dead-set on passing a tax bill that amounts to a redistribution of wealth toward the super-rich and business owners and away from the "merely" well-off and white collar salaried professionals.

I still do not understand why someone should pay a lower tax bill simply because they live in a state that has high state taxes and property taxes. IF you live in and vote for higher taxes in your state for a variety of reasons, more power to you, but I don't think you should then expect to get let off the hook at the federal level. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Also, anybody who is paying 10,000 dollars in property taxes is the type of person that represents the "rich" that the sanders wing wants to heavily tax.

Funny how they garner sympathy from the left when it is the GOP that targets their unfair tax deduction. 

[Shadows]

The thing that shocks me is certain people here say how suburanties were a deadend for dems because once Trump is gone and the culture warrior stuff dies down they'll go back to the GOP but this almost guarantee the suburbs going dem as now they are going to get hit in the pocketbook by Trump/GOP as well

It's bewildering how they seem to be almost trying to foster a realignment along the lines of the 2016 presidential election.

It would be easy for the suburban swing to the Democrats to have just been a fluke owing to a uniquely positioned Republican candidate. But the Republicans in elections this year have been running on the sort of culture war and anti-immigrant policies that offend suburbanites, and now Republicans in Congress seem dead-set on passing a tax bill that amounts to a redistribution of wealth toward the super-rich and business owners and away from the "merely" well-off and white collar salaried professionals.

I still do not understand why someone should pay a lower tax bill simply because they live in a state that has high state taxes and property taxes. IF you live in and vote for higher taxes in your state for a variety of reasons, more power to you, but I don't think you should then expect to get let off the hook at the federal level. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Also, anybody who is paying 10,000 dollars in property taxes is the type of person that represents the "rich" that the sanders wing wants to heavily tax.

Funny how they garner sympathy from the left when it is the GOP that targets their unfair tax deduction.  

Double taxation. Pretty simple & basic, which is why SALT was there since the tax code was there.

If you pay local taxes, you don't have to pay taxes on that local tax again at the federal level. Why should you pay tax twice? Most of the so-called High tax states are subsidizing most red states & get a fraction of the taxes they send anyways. It is totally crazy that Trump wants to apply a tax on local taxes now (which is what taking away the deduction is). And it is not some person paying 10K, there are many people earning less than 100-150K who will be effected by this bigtime.

And these voters didn't vote for the GOP to raise taxes on them. The GOP basically has the Congress due to these 3 dozen representatives from CA, NY, NJ, Illinois, etc. They would be toast without them in the house.

[jaichind]

Double taxation. Pretty simple & basic, which is why SALT was there since the tax code was there.

If you pay local taxes, you don't have to pay taxes on that local tax again at the federal level. Why should you pay tax twice? Most of the so-called High tax states are subsidizing most red states & get a fraction of the taxes they send anyways. It is totally crazy that Trump wants to apply a tax on local taxes now (which is what taking away the deduction is). And it is not some person paying 10K, there are many people earning less than 100-150K who will be effected by this bigtime.

And these voters didn't vote for the GOP to raise taxes on them. The GOP basically has the Congress due to these 3 dozen representatives from CA, NY, NJ, Illinois, etc. They would be toast without them in the house.

Why would not the reverse logic be true?  Namely is it not double taxation when state and local income taxes are being levied on income without removing what is being paid by federal taxes? By this logic should not all state and local income taxes first allow as deduction the amount paid in federal taxes?  I would also think by the same logic property taxes should also be deductible at the state and local income tax level as well.  And of course FICA and Obamacare taxes should also be deductible at the state and local level.  In theory the same should be true for FICA and Obamacare for federal taxes but I will grant that all of them are federal taxes so they can be additive and not seperate taxes that could lead to an argument of double taxation. 

Of course once property taxes are in the mix, then should not sales tax also be in the mix as well since just like property taxes, sales tax are not related to income.  I get the federal tax code allows people in no income tax states (like FL) to use sales tax instead for deductions.  But by the double taxation argument means that it should not that be additive and not in replace off.  Namely sales tax should always be deductible on federal taxes and maybe state and local taxes (I guess less of an argument there just like the FICA/Obamacare for federal taxes).

If we did that then while I would not agree with this system I would agree it is internally consistent.  What the GOP Senate plan is internally consistent on the basis that all taxes are separate and what one pays for one should not affect the other.

[Shadows]

Double taxation. Pretty simple & basic, which is why SALT was there since the tax code was there.

If you pay local taxes, you don't have to pay taxes on that local tax again at the federal level. Why should you pay tax twice? Most of the so-called High tax states are subsidizing most red states & get a fraction of the taxes they send anyways. It is totally crazy that Trump wants to apply a tax on local taxes now (which is what taking away the deduction is). And it is not some person paying 10K, there are many people earning less than 100-150K who will be effected by this bigtime.

And these voters didn't vote for the GOP to raise taxes on them. The GOP basically has the Congress due to these 3 dozen representatives from CA, NY, NJ, Illinois, etc. They would be toast without them in the house.

Why would not the reverse logic be true?  Namely is it not double taxation when state and local income taxes are being levied on income without removing what is being paid by federal taxes? By this logic should not all state and local income taxes first allow as deduction the amount paid in federal taxes?  I would also think by the same logic property taxes should also be deductible at the state and local income tax level as well.  And of course FICA and Obamacare taxes should also be deductible at the state and local level.  In theory the same should be true for FICA and Obamacare for federal taxes but I will grant that all of them are federal taxes so they can be additive and not seperate taxes that could lead to an argument of double taxation. 

Of course once property taxes are in the mix, then should not sales tax also be in the mix as well since just like property taxes, sales tax are not related to income.  I get the federal tax code allows people in no income tax states (like FL) to use sales tax instead for deductions.  But by the double taxation argument means that it should not that be additive and not in replace off.  Namely sales tax should always be deductible on federal taxes and maybe state and local taxes (I guess less of an argument there just like the FICA/Obamacare for federal taxes).

If we did that then while I would not agree with this system I would agree it is internally consistent.  What the GOP Senate plan is internally consistent on the basis that all taxes are separate and what one pays for one should not affect the other.

Sales Tax is something which is levied on most goods & there will be so many transactions, that it is totally impossible to even track it. Besides, it essentially adds to the price of goods, you get goods at a higher price. The key thing here is direct & indirect taxes. Indirect taxes go through private organizations & are levied on goods.

The concept here is Direct taxes which are levied directly by state & local bodies - Like property & Income taxes. Property taxes & income taxes should be deductible IMO. Both of them are a variation of direct taxes. But with property tax atleast one can argue. Income taxes are key basic direct tax levied on income.

Why on earth should one pay taxes on it a 2nd time at the state level? In general, by global standards, most of the direct taxes are levied at the federal level (Corporate, Personal Income taxes). The bulk of the tax revenue of direct taxes goes to the Federal level. Ideally, if you pay income tax X on your state, that X shouldn't be part of your taxable income. That is the reason SALT deduction has been there since the inception of the Tax code.

[Person Man]

The thing that shocks me is certain people here say how suburanties were a deadend for dems because once Trump is gone and the culture warrior stuff dies down they'll go back to the GOP but this almost guarantee the suburbs going dem as now they are going to get hit in the pocketbook by Trump/GOP as well

It's bewildering how they seem to be almost trying to foster a realignment along the lines of the 2016 presidential election.

It would be easy for the suburban swing to the Democrats to have just been a fluke owing to a uniquely positioned Republican candidate. But the Republicans in elections this year have been running on the sort of culture war and anti-immigrant policies that offend suburbanites, and now Republicans in Congress seem dead-set on passing a tax bill that amounts to a redistribution of wealth toward the super-rich and business owners and away from the "merely" well-off and white collar salaried professionals.

I still do not understand why someone should pay a lower tax bill simply because they live in a state that has high state taxes and property taxes. IF you live in and vote for higher taxes in your state for a variety of reasons, more power to you, but I don't think you should then expect to get let off the hook at the federal level. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Also, anybody who is paying 10,000 dollars in property taxes is the type of person that represents the "rich" that the sanders wing wants to heavily tax.

Funny how they garner sympathy from the left when it is the GOP that targets their unfair tax deduction. 

Yeah. Eating the upper-middle class is really sticking it to the man.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Double taxation. Pretty simple & basic, which is why SALT was there since the tax code was there.

If you pay local taxes, you don't have to pay taxes on that local tax again at the federal level. Why should you pay tax twice? Most of the so-called High tax states are subsidizing most red states & get a fraction of the taxes they send anyways. It is totally crazy that Trump wants to apply a tax on local taxes now (which is what taking away the deduction is). And it is not some person paying 10K, there are many people earning less than 100-150K who will be effected by this bigtime.

And these voters didn't vote for the GOP to raise taxes on them. The GOP basically has the Congress due to these 3 dozen representatives from CA, NY, NJ, Illinois, etc. They would be toast without them in the house.

Why would not the reverse logic be true?  Namely is it not double taxation when state and local income taxes are being levied on income without removing what is being paid by federal taxes? By this logic should not all state and local income taxes first allow as deduction the amount paid in federal taxes?  I would also think by the same logic property taxes should also be deductible at the state and local income tax level as well.  And of course FICA and Obamacare taxes should also be deductible at the state and local level.  In theory the same should be true for FICA and Obamacare for federal taxes but I will grant that all of them are federal taxes so they can be additive and not seperate taxes that could lead to an argument of double taxation.  

Of course once property taxes are in the mix, then should not sales tax also be in the mix as well since just like property taxes, sales tax are not related to income.  I get the federal tax code allows people in no income tax states (like FL) to use sales tax instead for deductions.  But by the double taxation argument means that it should not that be additive and not in replace off.  Namely sales tax should always be deductible on federal taxes and maybe state and local taxes (I guess less of an argument there just like the FICA/Obamacare for federal taxes).

If we did that then while I would not agree with this system I would agree it is internally consistent.  What the GOP Senate plan is internally consistent on the basis that all taxes are separate and what one pays for one should not affect the other.

Sales Tax is something which is levied on most goods & there will be so many transactions, that it is totally impossible to even track it. Besides, it essentially adds to the price of goods, you get goods at a higher price. The key thing here is direct & indirect taxes. Indirect taxes go through private organizations & are levied on goods.

The concept here is Direct taxes which are levied directly by state & local bodies - Like property & Income taxes. Property taxes & income taxes should be deductible IMO. Both of them are a variation of direct taxes. But with property tax atleast one can argue. Income taxes are key basic direct tax levied on income.

Why on earth should one pay taxes on it a 2nd time at the state level? In general, by global standards, most of the direct taxes are levied at the federal level (Corporate, Personal Income taxes). The bulk of the tax revenue of direct taxes goes to the Federal level. Ideally, if you pay income tax X on your state, that X shouldn't be part of your taxable income. That is the reason SALT deduction has been there since the inception of the Tax code.

Why bother trying to convince him?  Or are you trying to convince us or some unseen audience that your position is the more reasonable one?

A guy with an e-score of 9 is arguing for tax hikes in liberal states using liberal talking points.  Because the reform is completely regressive and there is no argument for it.

The right wing is off the hinges, tossing through the tumult and they think everything is fine!  

[darklordoftech]

The thing that shocks me is certain people here say how suburanties were a deadend for dems because once Trump is gone and the culture warrior stuff dies down they'll go back to the GOP but this almost guarantee the suburbs going dem as now they are going to get hit in the pocketbook by Trump/GOP as well

It's bewildering how they seem to be almost trying to foster a realignment along the lines of the 2016 presidential election.

It would be easy for the suburban swing to the Democrats to have just been a fluke owing to a uniquely positioned Republican candidate. But the Republicans in elections this year have been running on the sort of culture war and anti-immigrant policies that offend suburbanites, and now Republicans in Congress seem dead-set on passing a tax bill that amounts to a redistribution of wealth toward the super-rich and business owners and away from the "merely" well-off and white collar salaried professionals.

I feel like it's an attempt to punish people who vote Democrat against their self-interest.

[Indy Texas]

The thing that shocks me is certain people here say how suburanties were a deadend for dems because once Trump is gone and the culture warrior stuff dies down they'll go back to the GOP but this almost guarantee the suburbs going dem as now they are going to get hit in the pocketbook by Trump/GOP as well

It's bewildering how they seem to be almost trying to foster a realignment along the lines of the 2016 presidential election.

It would be easy for the suburban swing to the Democrats to have just been a fluke owing to a uniquely positioned Republican candidate. But the Republicans in elections this year have been running on the sort of culture war and anti-immigrant policies that offend suburbanites, and now Republicans in Congress seem dead-set on passing a tax bill that amounts to a redistribution of wealth toward the super-rich and business owners and away from the "merely" well-off and white collar salaried professionals.

I still do not understand why someone should pay a lower tax bill simply because they live in a state that has high state taxes and property taxes. IF you live in and vote for higher taxes in your state for a variety of reasons, more power to you, but I don't think you should then expect to get let off the hook at the federal level. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Also, anybody who is paying 10,000 dollars in property taxes is the type of person that represents the "rich" that the sanders wing wants to heavily tax.

Funny how they garner sympathy from the left when it is the GOP that targets their unfair tax deduction. 

That's a very un-conservative thing to say, Marty. Californians' money belongs to Californians. They have a right to keep more of it in California rather than have Donald Trump and the GOP Congress redistribute it to states like Montana and Mississippi.

[Person Man]

The thing that shocks me is certain people here say how suburanties were a deadend for dems because once Trump is gone and the culture warrior stuff dies down they'll go back to the GOP but this almost guarantee the suburbs going dem as now they are going to get hit in the pocketbook by Trump/GOP as well

It's bewildering how they seem to be almost trying to foster a realignment along the lines of the 2016 presidential election.

It would be easy for the suburban swing to the Democrats to have just been a fluke owing to a uniquely positioned Republican candidate. But the Republicans in elections this year have been running on the sort of culture war and anti-immigrant policies that offend suburbanites, and now Republicans in Congress seem dead-set on passing a tax bill that amounts to a redistribution of wealth toward the super-rich and business owners and away from the "merely" well-off and white collar salaried professionals.

I still do not understand why someone should pay a lower tax bill simply because they live in a state that has high state taxes and property taxes. IF you live in and vote for higher taxes in your state for a variety of reasons, more power to you, but I don't think you should then expect to get let off the hook at the federal level. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Also, anybody who is paying 10,000 dollars in property taxes is the type of person that represents the "rich" that the sanders wing wants to heavily tax.

Funny how they garner sympathy from the left when it is the GOP that targets their unfair tax deduction. 

That's a very un-conservative thing to say, Marty. Californians' money belongs to Californians. They have a right to keep more of it in California rather than have Donald Trump and the GOP Congress redistribute it to states like Montana and Mississippi.

"Why should I have to make your F-150 payment or buy you a new AR-15?"

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

Paul moving toward Support, Collins moving toward against:

Update:

To Summarize the view of the Senate:

Solidly Opposed: The 45 Dem Senators who signed the tax reform demand letter

Likely Opposed:
Manchin, Donnelly, Heitkamp - they didn't sign the letter and have said they have an open mind regarding the legislation, but they are strong supporters of ObamaCare and I really don't think they'd vote to overturn the mandate - however, I can't rule out the silm possibility that if Republicans have 50 votes without them, one of them would vote yes anyway because "My vote wouldn't change the outcome and I want to show bipartisanship so I can get re-elected"

Lean Opposed:
Corker - deficit hawk - but will he actually have a spine? We'll see.

Murkowski - Has suggested that her support may be conditional on passage of Alexander- Murray.

Paul - he voted against the framework, and his preferred amendments were rejected overwhelmingly. Politico has said in at least one article that he appears to be open to the final legislation, the addition of ObamaCare appears to  have been a ploy to get his vote, and party pressure is a powerful tool. But I still expect him to vote No because he voted No on the framework.

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%.

Lean Support:
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 a reliable vote for leadership, so the odds are he gets to yes, but we'll see.

Johnson - Said he can't support it right now, but he also said he wants to get to Yes. Odds are he'll find a way to vote yes eventually.

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.

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.

Safe Support: Other 44 GOP Senators


Overall: 52 AGAINST, 48 SUPPORT

[mvd10]

The Economist backs repealing the SALT deduction, and as a Very Serious Person™ who bases his opinion exclusively on what The Economist says I now officially endorse repealing the SALT deduction .

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Economist backs repealing the SALT deduction, and as a Very Serious Person™ who bases his opinion exclusively on what The Economist says I now officially endorse repealing the SALT deduction .

While not a concern at current tax rates, there is a very good reason for the SALT deduction, to keep the Federal government from starving State and Local governments of tax revenue by taxing it all.  Back when the top brackets were being taxed at 90% or more, the SALT deduction was essential.

[Virginiá]

LOL

[Torie]

The Economist backs repealing the SALT deduction, and as a Very Serious Person™ who bases his opinion exclusively on what The Economist says I now officially endorse repealing the SALT deduction .

While not a concern at current tax rates, there is a very good reason for the SALT deduction, to keep the Federal government from starving State and Local governments of tax revenue by taxing it all.  Back when the top brackets were being taxed at 90% or more, the SALT deduction was essential.

The correct position in my opinion is the moderate hero position. I don't think the federal government should subsidize high tax states. So I would favor a deduction capped at say a 5% state income tax rate (the cap amount is negotiable, but 5% seems reasonable), and actually give a higher deduction or credit to states with a rate lower than 5%, so the amount of the federal subsidy is neutral and does not fluctuate based on the rate. That has always been my position since I was in business school and thought about this issue.

Oh, on the corporate tax issue, it is not clear that is even a progressive tax. It is a tax on a legal entity, and much of that tax is passed through in the form of higher prices (rather than a tax on capital), and is really in the nature of a sales or VAT tax. The corporate rate should certainly not be so high that it hurts the US economy by driving economic activity abroad, and keeps cash from being repatriated. That is just dumbass.

[Person Man]

The Paul Ryan tax plan in a nutshell.



Trickle down! Yum!

The Human sh**tipede.

[Santander]

I told you corporations were people.

[Kingpoleon]

Just a reminder: if you’re married and making under $260,000 annually, you get a tax cut or at least break even. Single and under $200,000, same deal.

I really don’t get why this is “cutting taxes for the millionaires and billionaires.”

[Person Man]

I told you corporations were people.

Can I marry one?

[Kingpoleon]

I told you corporations were people.

Can I marry one?

No. As a peasant, you cannot marry such royalty.