$1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.”

Because taxes is more than just the tax rates, but also what gets taxed, and the elimination of deductions means that the amount of income getting taxed is increasing under both the House and Senate bills.

[Person Man]

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.”

Because taxes is more than just the tax rates, but also what gets taxed, and the elimination of deductions means that the amount of income getting taxed is increasing under both the House and Senate bills.

[Tintrlvr]

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.”

This is certainly not generally true. Marginal rates are only a portion of the overall calculation. As Ernest noted, the elimination of deductions and of the personal exemption (which is going way, way underreported for a change that literally only raises taxes on people making under ~$300,000/year to begin with since the personal exemption phases out for high earners) hit a lot of families and individuals, including many low and middle-income families and individuals and especially certain types of families and individuals that are more vulnerable than average, quite hard. Families or individuals with many children (or other dependents), families or individuals with high medical expenses, families or individuals that adopt, families or individuals with a member currently receiving tuition waivers, etc. will all see their taxes go up.

[mvd10]

Lowering tax rates while broadening the tax base (taxing more income) nearly always is a good thing though. But I agree that some of the measures cause a lot of harm for a relatively small amount of revenue (repealing the adoption tax credit and the tax measures regarding students).

[riceowl]

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.”

Absolutely false. Senate bill raises my taxes $1-2000, and I make 85 a year. Next.

[Person Man]

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.”

Absolutely false. Senate bill raises my taxes $1-2000, and I make 85 a year. Next.

That's roughly my situation.

[jaichind]

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.”

Absolutely false. Senate bill raises my taxes $1-2000, and I make 85 a year. Next.

There must be something relatively special about your situation.   TX does not have state income taxes.  So if we plug 85K for AGI (which I think is an overestimate for you since you might have things like 401K or other above the line deductions.)   Assuming then one went with standard deduction filing as single in 2018, under current law the tax comes out to $14,228.75.  Under the House plan the 2018 tax comes out to $12,050.00 while under the Senate plan the tax comes out to $12,496.00.  Of course this is not to say you will not get a 1-2K increase.  It will depend on the circumstances.  

For example, if the real estate taxes you pay is 20K.  Then your 2018 tax under current law comes out to $10,866.25 while under the House plan the 2018 tax stays at $12,050.00 while under the Senate plan the tax stays at $12,496.00.  So there will be an increase of 1-2K. But it would unusual for someone with an AGI of 85K to own a house that has real estate taxes of 20K. It is possible but unusual.  

[jaichind]

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.”

I would generally agree with your thresholds on which taxpayers benefits.  I would argue that even up to 500K due to AMT going away the high tax states filers would not see much of an increase if not a decrease.  It is the households above 500K in high tax states that will take a hit.

As why this is viewed as “cutting taxes for the millionaires and billionaires" it is mostly because of removal of AMT does help not just people in the 200K-500K range but also business owners that might have a lot of deductions but then had to pay AMT tax which is gone now.  Of course there is this whole pass-through business whose benefit to high income business owners is exaggerated but there is a benefit.  Of course corp tax cut helps equity owners which tend to be wealthier than normal.

[riceowl]

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.”

Absolutely false. Senate bill raises my taxes $1-2000, and I make 85 a year. Next.

There must be something relatively special about your situation.   TX does not have state income taxes.  So if we plug 85K for AGI (which I think is an overestimate for you since you might have things like 401K or other above the line deductions.)   Assuming then one went with standard deduction filing as single in 2018, under current law the tax comes out to $14,228.75.  Under the House plan the 2018 tax comes out to $12,050.00 while under the Senate plan the tax comes out to $12,496.00.  Of course this is not to say you will not get a 1-2K increase.  It will depend on the circumstances. 

For example, if the real estate taxes you pay is 20K.  Then your 2018 tax under current law comes out to $10,866.25 while under the House plan the 2018 tax stays at $12,050.00 while under the Senate plan the tax stays at $12,496.00.  So there will be an increase of 1-2K. But it would unusual for someone with an AGI of 85K to own a house that has real estate taxes of 20K. It is possible but unusual.   

I take 18k in deductions, including 6k of property tax. The other 12 remain deductible but hey look at that the new standard is 12.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

I look forward to seeing the same people (not here, just generally) advocating for eliminating SALT complain about a future Dem trifecta moving or closing military bases and other federal funds in Red states into Blue states to retaliate for elimination of SALT. And to really "salt" the wound, they should make SALT a credit.

This is precisely why I'm against this plan: Red staters sticking it to Blue staters in such an obvious way is just going to lead to escalation, which is awful for the economy. In isolation, many of the individual side changes are reasonable (collapsing brackets, simplifying, etc), but instead of an equally distributed pain, the pay-fors are falling disproportionately on Dem-leaning constituencies, while the majority of benefits accrue to those with few to no deductions (who benefit from the increased standard deduction) and those at the tippy top, for whom the elimination of the estate tax, AMT, and personal exemptions will disproportionately benefit. The tax code becoming yet another political football is horrible public policy and I would be equally appalled if Dems were making the first move like this.

[MasterJedi]

Why can't they just do something smart like:

- Actually lower the tax rate and keep all deductions for those making $250,000 or less.
- Lower corporate tax rates to get them in line with the rest of the world but then close the loopholes so corporations actually have to pay the 20-25% tax rate.
- Eliminate the estate tax for the small farmers that can possibly get hit while raising it on wealthy estates.
-Jacking up taxes 20-30% for the top 1% and punishing hiding money in offshore accounts.

Everyone wins!

[Shadows]

Why can't they just do something smart like:

- Actually lower the tax rate and keep all deductions for those making $250,000 or less.
- Lower corporate tax rates to get them in line with the rest of the world but then close the loopholes so corporations actually have to pay the 20-25% tax rate.
- Eliminate the estate tax for the small farmers that can possibly get hit while raising it on wealthy estates.
-Jacking up taxes 20-30% for the top 1% and punishing hiding money in offshore accounts.

Everyone wins!

Bush already raised the eligibility for the Estate Tax. The rates & eligibility has been raised so many times. It is like 5-6M $ now. There are no "Small farmers". Besides there are like 80 odd farmers in total.

Deductions don't effect the top people because of AMT. AMT ensures that they can't benefit from those big-time & have to pay a certain share. Most of these are middle class deductions, sometimes preventing double taxation.

Cutting Corporate taxes was something I think is not a terrible deal. It is globally between 25-30% apart from some exceptions. So, a 25-30% won't be bade but it will add to the deficit & it is unlikely to bring growth as corporations are sitting on record profits.

I don't see much scope for tax reform. Obama proposed cutting the Corporate rate to 27-28% & remove all deductions which wouldn't add to the deficit. The GOP rejected it. That is the best case scenario for a conservative tax reform.

[jaichind]

There must be something relatively special about your situation.   TX does not have state income taxes.  So if we plug 85K for AGI (which I think is an overestimate for you since you might have things like 401K or other above the line deductions.)   Assuming then one went with standard deduction filing as single in 2018, under current law the tax comes out to $14,228.75.  Under the House plan the 2018 tax comes out to $12,050.00 while under the Senate plan the tax comes out to $12,496.00.  Of course this is not to say you will not get a 1-2K increase.  It will depend on the circumstances. 

For example, if the real estate taxes you pay is 20K.  Then your 2018 tax under current law comes out to $10,866.25 while under the House plan the 2018 tax stays at $12,050.00 while under the Senate plan the tax stays at $12,496.00.  So there will be an increase of 1-2K. But it would unusual for someone with an AGI of 85K to own a house that has real estate taxes of 20K. It is possible but unusual.   

I take 18k in deductions, including 6k of property tax. The other 12 remain deductible but hey look at that the new standard is 12.

Ok.  If so I agree you do lose under the Senate Plan.  For 2018 it goes from $11,366.25 to $12,496.00. But you should back the House plan which would put it at $10,600.00 and would be a reduction.

Of course lets agree that a deduction of 18K on an AGI of less than 85K is pretty unusual.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Why can't they just do something smart like:

- Actually lower the tax rate and keep all deductions for those making $250,000 or less.
- Lower corporate tax rates to get them in line with the rest of the world but then close the loopholes so corporations actually have to pay the 20-25% tax rate.
- Eliminate the estate tax for the small farmers that can possibly get hit while raising it on wealthy estates.
-Jacking up taxes 20-30% for the top 1% and punishing hiding money in offshore accounts.

Everyone wins!

Donors don't get their ROI.

[Kingpoleon]

Why can't they just do something smart like:

- Actually lower the tax rate and keep all deductions for those making $250,000 or less.
- Lower corporate tax rates to get them in line with the rest of the world but then close the loopholes so corporations actually have to pay the 20-25% tax rate.
- Eliminate the estate tax for the small farmers that can possibly get hit while raising it on wealthy estates.
-Jacking up taxes 20-30% for the top 1% and punishing hiding money in offshore accounts.

Everyone wins!

You don’t seriously believe that people should be taxed 60-70% of their income, do you?

[riceowl]

There must be something relatively special about your situation.   TX does not have state income taxes.  So if we plug 85K for AGI (which I think is an overestimate for you since you might have things like 401K or other above the line deductions.)   Assuming then one went with standard deduction filing as single in 2018, under current law the tax comes out to $14,228.75.  Under the House plan the 2018 tax comes out to $12,050.00 while under the Senate plan the tax comes out to $12,496.00.  Of course this is not to say you will not get a 1-2K increase.  It will depend on the circumstances. 

For example, if the real estate taxes you pay is 20K.  Then your 2018 tax under current law comes out to $10,866.25 while under the House plan the 2018 tax stays at $12,050.00 while under the Senate plan the tax stays at $12,496.00.  So there will be an increase of 1-2K. But it would unusual for someone with an AGI of 85K to own a house that has real estate taxes of 20K. It is possible but unusual.   

I take 18k in deductions, including 6k of property tax. The other 12 remain deductible but hey look at that the new standard is 12.

Ok.  If so I agree you do lose under the Senate Plan.  For 2018 it goes from $11,366.25 to $12,496.00. But you should back the House plan which would put it at $10,600.00 and would be a reduction.

Of course lets agree that a deduction of 18K on an AGI of less than 85K is pretty unusual.

Sure. And I'd be ok with my taxes going up if I thought it was going to something helpful. Alas.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Great article on this Tax plan by the NYT
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/opinion/sunday/republicans-taxes-middle-class.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[GeorgiaModerate]

The University of Chicago surveyed over 40 leading economists.  They found exactly one who agreed that the proposed tax changes will substantially grow the economy.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel

[Ban my account ffs!]

The University of Chicago surveyed over 40 leading economists.  They found exactly one who agreed that the proposed tax changes will substantially grow the economy.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel

[Matty]

Lisa Murkowksi just came out and said she supports mandate repeal

Pretty big news

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

Moving Murkowski to Lean Support:

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.

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.

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

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: 51 AGAINST, 49 SUPPORT

[junior chįmp]

Moving Murkowski to Lean Support:

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.

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.

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

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: 51 AGAINST, 49 SUPPORT

Don't be delusional....their going to pass it and the GOP will get BTFO

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Moving Murkowski to Lean Support:

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.

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.

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

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: 51 AGAINST, 49 SUPPORT

Don't be delusional....their going to pass it and the GOP will get BTFO

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that this steaming pile of sh**t is passing.

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

Of the "Lean Opposed", the one I'm most worried about is Corker FWIW.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Where the f**k are the Democrats?!? Where the f**k are the healthcare activists?!? This is Obamacare repeal 6.0 + a bunch of horrible tax breaks for billionaires and nobody has been trying to do anything about it.

The left is a f**king joke if we can't even hold people accountable for voting for this sh*t bill. We deserve to keep losing.