$1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread

[Badger]

I suppose you don't want to talk about how the economy was doing when the Bush tax cuts fully took effect circa 2008-2010.

This is at least the second time in the last couple weeks you have tried to connect the Bush tax cuts to the Financial Crisis. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about because those are totally unrelated to each other. Stop.

The Bush Tax cuts were sold as an economic stimulus, which was obviously an epic fail.

It was sold as an economic stimulus to the early 2000s recession , which indeed it was . The 2008 crash still would have happened without the tax cuts , so no the tax cuts and the crash are not related.

You are one delusional spoiled rich kid, know that?

[Badger]

They are going to botch this too aren't they?

Don't get your hopes up. I wouldn't be surprised if McConnell and/or Ryan threaten to kick people off committees if they don't vote for this.

That would require them to be competent. Last tax reform in 1986 took a year and a half to pass and was done in a bipartisan manner, but these idiots think they can get it done by Christmas.

Well that's because it actually was tax reform. This is just ordinary tax shifting like w did

[Badger]

My dad lives in Portland ,has an upper middle class job ,and this tax plan would reduce my dad's taxes .

Well it depends on what is upper middle class job/income.  Lets do the math. 

We can define upper middle class income in OR as either AGI of 750K (that is the standard where I live in Scarsdale) or  500K or 250K.

If we go with 750K (of which around 37.5K are qualified dividends) then we can use state income tax of around 71.7K, real estate tax of around 15K (OR real estate taxes are around 1% so you figure 1% of $1.5 million dollar house) and charity of around 15K.  I assume no mortgage.  If we do that under current law in 2018 the fed tax would be around 199K.  If we go with the Trump plan even though the qualified dividends would be taxed at a lower 15% rate vs 20% under the current plan the loss of deductions means that the tax bill would be 209K which is an increase of 10K.

If we go with 500K (of which around 20K are qualified dividends) then we can use state income tax of around 47K, real estate tax of around 10K (OR real estate taxes are around 1% so you figure 1% of $1 million dollar house) and charity of around 7.5K.  If we do that under current law in 2018 the fed tax would be around 132K.  If we go with the Trump plan even the tax bill would be 125K which is a decrease of 7K.

If we go with 250K (of which around 7.5K are qualified dividends) then we can use state income tax of around 22.2K, real estate tax of around 5K (OR real estate taxes are around 1% so you figure 1% of 500K house) and charity of around 3.8K.  If we do that under current law in 2018 the fed tax would be around 46K.  If we go with the Trump plan even the tax bill would be 44K which is a slight decrease of 7K.

The main drivers here are at 500K AMT is kicking in strong which having AMT going away in the new plan help offset losing those deductions.  At 250K the new plan is almost wash relative to existing plan.   And at 750K the new plan is a clear loss.  Now, OR has fairly low real estate taxes ergo the impact on higher income taxpayers is smaller than other even higher tax states.  I agree OR is high state tax but you have compare that to places like NYC (where there is the city tax) or NYC suburbs where real estate taxes are high.  Same for CA.

Upper middle class is 90k-250k

That statement shows just what an utterly enriched bubble World you live in.

Do some research as to what the actual median household income in the country is, and what percentile 200 Grand a year and up really constitutes.

[Badger]

If it passes the House, it will pass by 2 votes with lots of people "released" to vote no.

Correct answer

[Badger]

Barbara Comstock voted to raise our taxes. Bad.

She knows she's done, she doesn't have to pretend to be moderate anymore.

Yeah, what this most indicative of is that she's going to retire and wants to keep conservative bona fide strong for future work as a lobbyist, commentator, or Statewide candidate

[Badger]

I played around with my income tax plan calculator that I built based on the House and Senate plans and added in the feature to do calculations for Singles and Head of Household recently. One thing I noticed about the House and Senate plans is that both closes the gap on the marriage penalty for higher income taxpayers.  But it seems the Senate plan is much more aggressive on closing that gap than the House.  High income singles will get hit badly by this.  It seems the greatest net loser in the Senate tax plan, by far, is the high income single salaried taxpayer living in an ultra-high tax area, say, San Francisco or NYC.   Wow.  My wife tells me some of her single investment banking friends in NYC are very steamed by this plan.  I can see why.  I put in some numbers and nearly fell off my seat on how badly they will get hit.

Combine this with the Republican Party's "family values" rhetoric, and I can't help but wonder if there's a motive for this.

I think it is a bit more complex then that.  It is more about assortative mating at the higher income levels.  The current tax code actually make is neutral or even slightly advantageous for a doctor to marry a nurse but carries heavy punishments when a doctor marries a doctor.  The House and to much a bigger extent the Senate plans reduces or even eliminates this punishment.  This would be a non-issue 50 years ago but with the change in social norms and social expectations of women in professional world this is a relevant issue.  To some extent assortative mating at the top plus the rise of services in the economy are major drivers of household income inequity last couple of generations.  This marriage penalty in the tax code partially offset this trend.  Now if the Senate plan passes, with my total support, this economic constraint on assortative mating will be removed, as it should be.

So tell us, we'll this family values plan be a sufficient windfall for you invest in your profit-making Southeast Asian child rape Factory? You said you might go into it if it was a money-making Venture. And therefore incidentally forever cementing you as an amoral POS. Just curious.

[Badger]

How tax reform will affect me depends on the future phases of my life.

Currently - Net loss of 2-3K under House plan, gain of 4-5K under Senate plan. 

In 2-3 years when I will go into semi-retirement by working part time and DW completely retires - gain of 4-5K under House Plan and gain of 4-5K under Senate plan mostly because AMT goes away.

In 5-6 years when I will completely retire but live in Scarsdale until my kid goes to college - loss of 6K-7K under House plan and loss of 7K-8K under Senate plan mostly due to loss of deductions of real estate taxes will shift what rates my qualified dividends will be taxed at.

In 11-12 years when I will move to FL in retirement - gain of 4-5K under House Plan and gain of 4-5K under Senate plan mostly because of the larger standard deduction and lower rates.

Overall this plan is a plus for us and it goes through most likely I will work part time a bit longer I had planned to make up for some of the losses I will incur under this plan when I go into full retirement but still live in high tax Scarsdale.

Tell me, do you ever consider anything other than your own narrow self-interest in such matters or do you think worrying about the effects upon society, the economy, and the long-term fiscal health of the government is for suckers?

Ernest, have you read his posting history? The answer is an obvious no. Remember, as I alluded to above, this guy is so flipping an amoral worshiper of Mammon.

Remember, as I alluded to above, I once after a set of particularly nastily insensitive to anyone who wasn't his wealthy New York social set posts, I poked at him implying he would probably rarely invest in a Southeast Asian child brothel if it proved profitable when he can avoid any social or legal repercussions from it. To my, and even most people's on this forum amazement, he replied straight-faced stating that, yes, he would indeed do so if the legal and economic realities we're favorable to him. He went into a lengthy detailed economic analysis about how child sex slavery trade might create additional funds for he and his family if the legal niceties could be observed in a third world country.

It can't be emphasized enough that his post was serious. I think it is Manifest he is never shown and iota of ability or willingness to troll, or even for that matter display any human emotion Beyond greed, let alone humor. Secondly his post was 110% consistent with the ideology, mannerisms, and Analysis of his entire posting history. To reiterate, he quite seriously and without an ounce of morel analysis or reservation, discussed how he would indeed engage in an underaged brothel, or let's just call it what it is - - child sex slavery in the third world dash dash for-profit.

Which, incidentally is one of the reasons I consider j a i c h i n d one of the most horrible and deplorable posters on the form. He is not as outspoken or persistent in his viciousness, but he Bears the heart and soul of an adding machine with not an ounce of human morals Beyond gain. He's the type of person that thinks just because he loves his immediate family and closest friends that that doesn't show he still has the overall empathy level of a sociopath.

Folks like English Pete and craisin are like the screaming Hitler's and Goebbels who whip up the crowds with their braying evil. J a i c h i a n d is like the doctor Mengele who gladly commits equally horrible Deeds under the Specter of dispassionate scientific reason and Analysis. But they're all obviously equivalently awful bastards, of course.

[Badger]

I'm sure everyone's favorite RINO is jizzing up a storm right now. After all, tax cuts for the wealthy is basically the only reason s/he's a Republican.

It's better than being a Republican because you just hate the blacks

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The corporate tax cut will attract companies, spur investment and create thousands of jobs for minorities. Trump loves minorities and minorities will love Trump after they get their big fat TRUMP paycheck next year . Democrats oppose corporate tax cuts because they help minorities. SAD!

Why do you have a blue avatar again? Clearly you don't drink the kool-aid on trickle-down and white-grievance, so I'm genuinely puzzled.

Not all Republicans are Trumpists. (Most, sadly, but not all).

[Badger]

I'm sure everyone's favorite RINO is jizzing up a storm right now. After all, tax cuts for the wealthy is basically the only reason s/he's a Republican.

It's better than being a Republican because you just hate the blacks

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The corporate tax cut will attract companies, spur investment and create thousands of jobs for minorities. Trump loves minorities and minorities will love Trump after they get their big fat TRUMP paycheck next year . Democrats oppose corporate tax cuts because they help minorities. SAD!

Why do you have a blue avatar again? Clearly you don't drink the kool-aid on trickle-down and white-grievance, so I'm genuinely puzzled.

Not all Republicans are Trumpists. (Most, sadly, but not all).

Well why are you? I don't think I've ever seem you argue for the standard Republicam position on anything on this forum. So what in the world is the point if you're clearly out of sync with the party? Lol

Because there is a world of the Republican Party Beyond Trump. It's increasingly, and scarily, narrowing, but it exists.

Besides, someone has to fight these bastards from the inside

[Badger]

A bill with F_CKING illegible hand written edits in the margins was passed! F_CK REPUBLICANS AND THEIR VOTERS.

You can just tell it was a Republican too: bad handwriting and tons of basic spelling mistakes

Which themselves will bring up Constitutional questions.

I'm waiting for someone to discover a typo that changes intent, something like a reduction in taxes on boats being written as "boots".

In one state some drug offenders had to be released because the statute prohibited "ethamphetamine" instead of "methamphetamine". 

Yep. Nebraska IIRC.

[Badger]

To make things simple I am now just rooting for House to pass this bill as it and call it  a day.  A great policy victory. GOP will get hammered in 2018 but it is worth it from my point of view.  The short term stimulus would mean that Trump will head into 2020 with a solid record of economic growth and could even win re-election which would delay another 4 years from Dems trying to reverse some of this.

In what ways are huge deficit spending and further decreasing revenue thereby incurring more deficit spending a victory? This bill is sure to do that and to make the math work you need to do cuts. Republicans won't cut or streamline discretionary but will only cut non-discretionary items like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those programs could remain solvent with simple fixes, not decimation.

Also, Jaichind, you DO realize the OVERWHELMING consensus of economists (outside the White House of course) are of the resolute opinion this will do little to nothing to foster greater private sector growth? Corporations are ALREADY running with record level profits, and the economy's big weakness is lack of wage growth and money being put in the middle class's hands, for which this tax bill does little to nothing.

A recent survey of 40 top economists, including conservatives, were polled as to whether this tax cut is likely to notably spur economic growth. 39 out of 40 said "no"!

But hey, you're getting your beak wet, so FTW. Amarite? It's the Jaichind way.

[Badger]

To make things simple I am now just rooting for House to pass this bill as it and call it  a day.  A great policy victory. GOP will get hammered in 2018 but it is worth it from my point of view.  The short term stimulus would mean that Trump will head into 2020 with a solid record of economic growth and could even win re-election which would delay another 4 years from Dems trying to reverse some of this.

In what ways are huge deficit spending and further decreasing revenue thereby incurring more deficit spending a victory? This bill is sure to do that and to make the math work you need to do cuts. Republicans won't cut or streamline discretionary but will only cut non-discretionary items like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those programs could remain solvent with simple fixes, not decimation.

Also, Jaichind, you DO realize the OVERWHELMING consensus of economists (outside the White House of course) are of the resolute opinion this will do little to nothing to foster greater private sector growth? Corporations are ALREADY running with record level profits, and the economy's big weakness is lack of wage growth and money being put in the middle class's hands, for which this tax bill does little to nothing.

A recent survey of 40 top economists, including conservatives, were polled as to whether this tax cut is likely to notably spur economic growth. 39 out of 40 said "no"!

But hey, you're getting your beak wet, so FTW. Amarite? It's the Jaichind way.

Hmmm.  Sorry it seems I did not do a good job communicating what I meant.  I totally agree that the long term impact of this tax plan is mixed and the jury will be out for a while on that. What I meant about the short term stimulus in the Senate plan are the a)  immediate implementation of temporary full expensing and b)  one-time low tax rate on overseas profits will lead to a surge of investments and expatriation of foreign based profits will lead to the surge of business spending in 2018 and in turn jazz up the economy in 2019 and just in time for Trump's re-election in 2020.

Perhaps I didn't do a good job communicating what I meant.  While I am sure you are happy as to how this affects your extremely wealthy families bottom line, let me repeat.

An. Overwhelming. Consensus. Among. Economists. Is. This. Bill. Will. Do. Little. To. Spur. Economic. Growth!!

[Badger]

To make things simple I am now just rooting for House to pass this bill as it and call it  a day.  A great policy victory. GOP will get hammered in 2018 but it is worth it from my point of view.  The short term stimulus would mean that Trump will head into 2020 with a solid record of economic growth and could even win re-election which would delay another 4 years from Dems trying to reverse some of this.

In what ways are huge deficit spending and further decreasing revenue thereby incurring more deficit spending a victory? This bill is sure to do that and to make the math work you need to do cuts. Republicans won't cut or streamline discretionary but will only cut non-discretionary items like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those programs could remain solvent with simple fixes, not decimation.

Also, Jaichind, you DO realize the OVERWHELMING consensus of economists (outside the White House of course) are of the resolute opinion this will do little to nothing to foster greater private sector growth? Corporations are ALREADY running with record level profits, and the economy's big weakness is lack of wage growth and money being put in the middle class's hands, for which this tax bill does little to nothing.

A recent survey of 40 top economists, including conservatives, were polled as to whether this tax cut is likely to notably spur economic growth. 39 out of 40 said "no"!

But hey, you're getting your beak wet, so FTW. Amarite? It's the Jaichind way.

Hmmm.  Sorry it seems I did not do a good job communicating what I meant.  I totally agree that the long term impact of this tax plan is mixed and the jury will be out for a while on that. What I meant about the short term stimulus in the Senate plan are the a)  immediate implementation of temporary full expensing and b)  one-time low tax rate on overseas profits will lead to a surge of investments and expatriation of foreign based profits will lead to the surge of business spending in 2018 and in turn jazz up the economy in 2019 and just in time for Trump's re-election in 2020.

Perhaps I didn't do a good job communicating what I meant.  While I am sure you are happy as to how this affects your extremely wealthy families bottom line, let me repeat.

An. Overwhelming. Consensus. Among. Economists. Is. This. Bill. Will. Do. Little. To. Spur. Economic. Growth!!

Analysis from the CBO and the JCT (as well as private, less reliable companies like goldman sachs), find that it will indeed spur some growth, just not enough to cover the deficits it creates.

The academic literature is clear that corporate taxes in excess have negative consequences. Economists generally dislike the corporate tax, anyway.

But, I think the issue goes deeper: I out of principle believe families should keep more of their money, and this bill provides at least some relief. Most middle class families will see around 1500-2500 in savings.

If by some, you mean nominal growth oh, that I agree. If you also say that out of principle, ideology, whatever, this tax bill has far more support than economic reality should dictate, then again I absolutely agree.

However, I believe we vastly disagree on the term middle class families.

[Badger]

Is Corker actually a solid 100% no in the future, or did McConnell only allow him to vote no since it was going to pass anyway?

Corker explicitly said he remains open to voting for the final bill.

My preliminary ratings for the final bill:

Solidly Opposed: All 48 Dems
Likely Opposed: N/A
Lean Opposed: Corker
Toss-Up: Collins
Lean Support: Flake
Likely Support: Murkowski, Lankford, Paul, Daines
Safe Support: Other 45 Rs

Overall: 50 Support, 49 Opposed, 1 Toss-Up

Corker is one vote McConnell doesn't need to let slide because he's not running for reelection.

[Badger]

Jesus Christ! Can we get over this G 200000 or 150 thousand a year is actually middle-class if you live on the Upper East Side because housing is so expensive. That such b*******! If one owns a condo in Manhattan that only has 2 bedrooms and a single bath but it still costs $300,000, guess what? You own a $300,000 property. The fact that it doesn't have 5 bedrooms in a backyard is a cultural choice not an economic one. You have a $300,000 home, and you are no more or less well off then suburbanite with A3 car garage by spending the same amount on their house.

At the risk of sounding like I'm adopting some of B rtd's cultural hipster ism, yes one might not have nearly as large of property by spending $300,000 on a home in Manhattan as one would in Suburban Ohio, but you live in f****** Manhattan! You are a short subway ride from most of the greatest museums in the world oh, the greatest restaurants in the world, and all the million other cultural attractions of New York City. But economically? You still have a $300,000 home. The fact that you have two bedrooms in a single bath does not make you one iota more "middle class". And someone with a $300,000 home in Suburban Ohio with a creek running through the backyard and a 3 car garage on top of their five bedrooms. They both have, let me double-check the math here, oh yes, $300,000 worth of property Equity when the property is paid off.

Yes, I get it that incomes are somewhat higher in New York City and San Francisco and places like that to accommodate for higher housing costs, and somewhat Higher Living costs all around, though primarily housing based, but let's quit diluting ourselves that there is that much of a difference. $150,000 a year is f****** rich whether you live in bumfuk Ohio or Manhattan. I am so sick oh, sick I tell you of the children of urban professionals on this forum trying to say that because they don't have a backyard or 500 square foot family and dining room area like their cousins in the Midwest that somehow there any West middle class.

The median household income in this country I believe someone cited is $59,000 a year. There is your middle class. Please for the love of Christ quit bleating on about how living in a mirror two or three bedroom condo with a paltry quarter Mill in San Francisco make someone middle or even upper middle class. Don't like it? Sell the goddamn thing for a quarter Mill and move out to the suburbs or the Midwest where you can buy that 5 bedroom 3 car garage mcmansion. But at least don't pretend that you are anything closer two middle class then the individuals in such a large home  simply as your home is smaller because you chose to live right near Fisherman's Wharf or Central Park.

Rant over, for now.

[Badger]

I seem to recall reaching my breaking point on that subject 20 or 30 pages ago, Badger.

Missed it. I bet it was epic.