If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
Republicans are gambling quite a bit on the tax bill. It ain't popular at all. Less popular than when Obamacare passed. Correct if I'm wrong on a details, but the personal tax cuts don't go into effect until you file in 2019...so if R's are counting "once people see a refund, it'll be popular"...that won't happen until after the next election. Secondly, the personal tax cuts are temporary but the corporate ones are permanent? I wonder if that goes down well with those on the populist right?
I really don't think they are risking much. No matter what they do, come votin' time they will whip out their dogwhistles and point at Nancy Pelosi, and get their votes.
If the Ds want to stop this runaway train they need to get more people to the polls and more Ds in office. The End.
I really don't think they are risking much. No matter what they do, come votin' time they will whip out their dogwhistles and point at Nancy Pelosi, and get their votes.
If the Ds want to stop this runaway train they need to get more people to the polls and more Ds in office. The End.
The primary risk is in R's sitting home. Which was a problem for them in 2017 special elections. Trump hasn't demonstrated large coattails at this point.
Meanwhile, Penn's Wharton business school (Trump's Alma Mater) has done an analysis of the Bill and projects it will increase the GDP 0.6% to 1.1% higher than it otherwise would've been by 2027. That's something like a extra boost of 0.1% annually. The price paid for that is they also project the national debt to increase by $1.9 trillion to $2.2 trillion more than it otherwise would have.
By 2027, under our standard economics assumptions, we project that GDP is between 0.6 percent and 1.1 percent larger, relative to no tax changes. Debt increases between $1.9 trillion and $2.2 trillion, inclusive of economic growth. By 2040, we project that GDP is between 0.7 percent and 1.6 perce
This is get-it-while-you-can behaviour. Who knows how many of them fear a sexual-assault accusation anyways? Lots of these people won't be in Congress in 5 years.
People will notice the 2x standard deduction and child credit increase. I'll notice it. I love the SALT change and I wish they did more with mortgage interest, but it's a start. Definitely happy with it.
Obamacare proved a huge political cost, but it's also proven legislatively durable. The only way for the Ds to undo this is to raise taxes. Good luck.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
This is get-it-while-you-can behaviour. Who knows how many of them fear a sexual-assault accusation anyways? Lots of these people won't be in Congress in 5 years.
you think there are only republican names on that list?
People will notice the 2x standard deduction and child credit increase. I'll notice it. I love the SALT change and I wish they did more with mortgage interest, but it's a start. Definitely happy with it.
Obamacare proved a huge political cost, but it's also proven legislatively durable. The only way for the Ds to undo this is to raise taxes. Good luck.
Won't most of the 'cuts' automatically go back to what they were in 2026 unless ANOTHER bill is passed in the meantime?
Which sort of raises the question that if Republicans were confident this bill would pay for itself, why did they NOT make the cuts permanent?
People will notice the 2x standard deduction and child credit increase. I'll notice it. I love the SALT change and I wish they did more with mortgage interest, but it's a start. Definitely happy with it.
Obamacare proved a huge political cost, but it's also proven legislatively durable. The only way for the Ds to undo this is to raise taxes. Good luck.
I think the R's made a huge political mistake by talking about entitlement reform at the same time as a huge deficit inducing tax cut for the rich. People will notice those emerita being reduced and know that it was so Bob corker and Orrin hatch could save millions from their own pockets.
Talent, why are you happy about the SALT deduction and the mortgage deductions?
To be a professional means that you don't die. - Takeru "the Tsunami" Kobayashi
Correct if I'm wrong on a details, but the personal tax cuts don't go into effect until you file in 2019...so if R's are counting "once people see a refund, it'll be popular"...that won't happen until after the next election. Secondly, the personal tax cuts are temporary but the corporate ones are permanent? I wonder if that goes down well with those on the populist right?
You are wrong on the details.
(1) Persons who get a paycheck will see more money in the paycheck in February, after the accounting departments get the correct withholding.
(2) The people who pay no tax will see at least a $ 400.00 additional "refund", but not until 2019, so if you are looking at non-taxpayers, 85% of the Democrat base, then you are probably correct.
(3) In order to use reconciliation, they have to do a projected 10-year budget, and for that to fall under $1.5 Trillion (using static scoring) they had to have the high Obama taxes for individuals kick in in 2025-6. Same thing happened in 2012 with some small Bush tax cuts, but Obama made them permanent. It is hard to kill a give-away program, but it is also hard to take away a tax cut.
(4) The reason that the corporate cut is made permanent is that businesses have a much longer planning horizon than do individuals, for things like factories. Plus, the Dems mostly favor a corporate tax cut too.
We have raised up a whole generation thinking that economics is about how we split a fixed pie. They have been told that 1.5% growth is a new normal for lots of (false) reasons. So the bill is unpopular. The Republicans are betting the farm that these millennials see the power that a growing economy can produce, and that they will see it quickly.
Won't most of the 'cuts' automatically go back to what they were in 2026 unless ANOTHER bill is passed in the meantime?
Which sort of raises the question that if Republicans were confident this bill would pay for itself, why did they NOT make the cuts permanent?
1. Whoever controls the government in 2026 will not allow an automatic tax increase.
2. Because they budgeted $1.5 T over 10 years and the scoring that was done is static scoring. The assumption was that after the cuts the economy would grow at 1.9% for ten years. I can't remember who does the scoring, I only remember they have never been within 20% when all is said and done.
Concern over "deficits" is just political code for saying you disagree with the policy. Both sides.
Re SALT, I don't agree with reducing federal taxes through local and state decisions. With mortgage interest, it's an absolute sop to the middle class and up. More generally, I'm whole-heartedly behind doubling the standard deduction, increasing child credit and capping deductions. Simplification. Personally, I'd get rid of most of the deductions entirely, but it's a good first step.
When I was in private practice and making like 225 or something, my deductions were over 40 and my effective tax rate was about 12%. I paid a lot in local property taxes, but that was my choice, and I'm not sure why my choice to live in a high tax locality should relieve me of my obligations to the Federal govt.
Last edited by iam416; December 19, 2017, 09:24 PM.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
Concern over "deficits" is just political code for saying you disagree with the policy. Both sides.
Re SALT, I don't agree with reducing federal taxes through local and state decisions. With mortgage interest, it's an absolute sop to the middle class and up. More generally, I'm whole-heartedly behind doubling the standard deduction, increasing child credit and capping deductions. Simplification. Personally, I'd get rid of most of the deductions entirely, but it's a good first step.
When I was in private practice and making like 225 or something, my deductions were over 40 and my effective tax rate was about 12%. I paid a lot in local property taxes, but that was my choice, and I'm not sure why my choice to live in a high tax locality should relieve me of my obligations to the Federal govt.
Certainly this could be wildly off base, but do areas with high local/state taxes tend to be drains on the federal budget? My instinct tells me no. It's a fact that at least California and New York pay more in federal taxes than they receive back in any form of assistance. Nearly every state that gives more than it receives to the federal government tends to a Dem-Controlled, higher taxed state.
Concern over "deficits" is just political code for saying you disagree with the policy. Both sides.
Re SALT, I don't agree with reducing federal taxes through local and state decisions. With mortgage interest, it's an absolute sop to the middle class and up. More generally, I'm whole-heartedly behind doubling the standard deduction, increasing child credit and capping deductions. Simplification. Personally, I'd get rid of most of the deductions entirely, but it's a good first step.
When I was in private practice and making like 225 or something, my deductions were over 40 and my effective tax rate was about 12%. I paid a lot in local property taxes, but that was my choice, and I'm not sure why my choice to live in a high tax locality should relieve me of my obligations to the Federal govt.
However I agree with you that concern over deficits is mostly bullshit. That said, Republicans push 'deficit concern' as part of their brand far more than Democrats do and both in the Reagan and Trump era have demonstrated that it's mostly politics. If tax cuts cause big deficits, meh, who cares?
Who cares which states pay more or less or receive more or less? That's irrelevant, IMO.
Look, I know you're parroting the talking points, but give me your honest non-partisan opinion on SALT. If there were no such thing would you advocate for it knowing fully that the deduction (A) favors the wealthy by a mile; and (B) encourages local taxation by discounting the cost of those taxes. In other words re (B) you take money from the federal government to spend on your own local hamlet. Why on earth should I pay reduce my fedreal obligations by paying money into UPPER ARLINGTON'S coffers?????
I'd get rid of it altogether. Period. Which is, IMO, a "big government/anti-local" position, but I think it's fair.
Mortgage interest is a little different. I'm fine with encouraging home ownership, so I'm ok with it for a bit. But, I don't know why we should subsidize a million dollar home. Capping it at the levels they proposed seems extremely sensible to me.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
I couldn't agree with your first sentence more. Last year, the republicans couldn't disagree more. Next year, (when they try to reform entitlements) they won't be able to disagree more vociferously.
And thanks for explaining your tax ideas. I appreciate it.
To be a professional means that you don't die. - Takeru "the Tsunami" Kobayashi
Tweet
Comment