Tax Bill is a loser

[HI54UNI]

Non-partisan CBO came out with their assessment today:

-It will negatively affect people making under $30,000 by 2019.
-It will negatively affect people making under $75,000 by 2027.
-It will increase taxes for 50% of Americans by 2027.
-It will increase the deficit by 1.45T by 2027.
-It will decrease the number of insured by 4M by 2019 and 13M by 2027.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-BBFMsg2
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/27/politics/ ... index.html

The whole thing is a turd but when it comes to the CBO remember, garbage in garbage out.

[bluehenbillk]

I'll be the one leading the parade if/when this bill fails to pass.

It's not about "Main Street", it's about "Wall Street". And while I'm appreciative of all the gains my 401(k) has been making the more you read the fine print on this thing the worse it gets. You know that "doubled standard deduction", yea that goes away after a few years.

There is soooo little that is advantageous for any class of Americans other than the top 1% or the top 1/4 to 1/2 of the top 1%. It's amazing that the debate is over business pass through taxes and corporate rates versus anything that covers 99% + of Americans the GOP is about to bend over. Little Marco seems to be the only one voicing concerns over anything like that - with the family care credit.

[Chizzang]

I'll be the one leading the parade if/when this bill fails to pass.

It's not about "Main Street", it's about "Wall Street". And while I'm appreciative of all the gains my 401(k) has been making the more you read the fine print on this thing the worse it gets. You know that "doubled standard deduction", yea that goes away after a few years.

There is soooo little that is advantageous for any class of Americans other than the top 1% or the top 1/4 to 1/2 of the top 1%. It's amazing that the debate is over business pass through taxes and corporate rates versus anything that covers 99% + of Americans the GOP is about to bend over. Little Marco seems to be the only one voicing concerns over anything like that - with the family care credit.

The Republicans are just trying to make those free loading middle class Americans pay their share...

[JohnStOnge]

My impression is that one thing that is happening to the Republicans is that they are playing games in order to create a situation where they can get it through while avoiding the Senate rules that effectively require a super majority to pass anything. So they are basically saying, "Trust us on that future stuff, we'll fix that later."

The Republicans are just absolutely destroying their credibility right now.

[JohnStOnge]

Here we go again:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/voters- ... -says.html

Most American voters — 52 percent — disapprove of the GOP proposals to overhaul the tax system, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday. Only 25 percent of respondents approve of the Republican effort.

Another one:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/36069 ... eform-bill

And another about small businesses opposing it:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/36191 ... p-tax-bill

A Public Policy Polling poll, released by Businesses for Responsible Tax Reform, a group opposed to the GOP tax bills, finds 51 percent of small businesses are against the plan. About one-third, 34 percent, support the GOP tax plan.

Here the Republicans are looking at the 2018 elections for control of Congress. And they are very well aware of these polling data.

They all deserve to be cast into the Lake of Fire at this point.

[Chizzang]

[BDKJMU]

"until her premium goes up because you're trying to do away with the individual mandate"

And most people paying the Obamacare tax penalty are lower income folks like Cindy..

[CAA Flagship]

McCain announced that he is a "Yes" vote.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I'm ok with cutting corporate taxes if it doesn't come at the expense of hurting social programs that actually help people.

You don't actually think that's a concern of theirs, do you?

I hope not

[JohnStOnge]

Understand that if it were up to me taxes would be a lot lower because government would be doing a lot less. But given that we are having government do what it does I'm amazed at how the Republicans are defending this. When some entity like the CBO or the Joint Committee on Taxation says this bill would add a trillion or more to the cumulative deficits Republicans talk about how unreliable the estimates are. But the Republicans have absolutely no quantitative analysis of their own. They just go on faith. It's like "Oh yeah the economy will grow enough to ensure that we get enough increased revenue from that to avoid creating more debt" but they have absolutely NO analysis to support what they're saying.

Again: If they were saying that on principle people have a right to keep what they earn and if we have to cut government spending because we honor that I would be fine with it. But this thing of acting like doing what they are going to do is going to be revenue neutral or maybe even increase revenue when they have absolutely no basis for saying that is dishonest.

[CAA Flagship]

Understand that if it were up to me taxes would be a lot lower because government would be doing a lot less. But given that we are having government do what it does I'm amazed at how the Republicans are defending this. When some entity like the CBO or the Joint Committee on Taxation says this bill would add a trillion or more to the cumulative deficits Republicans talk about how unreliable the estimates are. But the Republicans have absolutely no quantitative analysis of their own. They just go on faith. It's like "Oh yeah the economy will grow enough to ensure that we get enough increased revenue from that to avoid creating more debt" but they have absolutely NO analysis to support what they're saying.

Again: If they were saying that on principle people have a right to keep what they earn and if we have to cut government spending because we honor that I would be fine with it. But this thing of acting like doing what they are going to do is going to be revenue neutral or maybe even increase revenue when they have absolutely no basis for saying that is dishonest.

Yeah, like another 1 trillion will make a difference.
We added 1 trillion PER YEAR earlier this decade.

[JohnStOnge]

Understand that if it were up to me taxes would be a lot lower because government would be doing a lot less. But given that we are having government do what it does I'm amazed at how the Republicans are defending this. When some entity like the CBO or the Joint Committee on Taxation says this bill would add a trillion or more to the cumulative deficits Republicans talk about how unreliable the estimates are. But the Republicans have absolutely no quantitative analysis of their own. They just go on faith. It's like "Oh yeah the economy will grow enough to ensure that we get enough increased revenue from that to avoid creating more debt" but they have absolutely NO analysis to support what they're saying.

Again: If they were saying that on principle people have a right to keep what they earn and if we have to cut government spending because we honor that I would be fine with it. But this thing of acting like doing what they are going to do is going to be revenue neutral or maybe even increase revenue when they have absolutely no basis for saying that is dishonest.

Yeah, like another 1 trillion will make a difference.
We added 1 trillion PER YEAR earlier this decade.

There's something to that but the point is THEY are making a big deal about saying it won't add to the deficits and telling people it won't.

Otherwise: I do think that, theoretically, there has got to be SOME limit on how much we can rely on increasing the debt to fund things. I mean, if how much we borrow doesn't matter why have taxes at all? I think the answer is that there has to be SOME revenue to create at least SOME assurance that the borrowed money along with the interest will be paid. Otherwise we couldn't borrow. So we know that 0 tax revenue wouldn't work. And you can start going up from there. $1, $2, $10000, $1000000... At some point you'll cross a threshold where there is enough tax revenue to provide the necessary assurance. At what point does the difference between revenue and spending become untenable?

[CAA Flagship]

Yeah, like another 1 trillion will make a difference.
We added 1 trillion PER YEAR earlier this decade.

There's something to that but the point is THEY are making a big deal about saying it won't add to the deficits and telling people it won't.

Otherwise: I do think that, theoretically, there has got to be SOME limit on how much we can rely on increasing the debt to fund things. I mean, if how much we borrow doesn't matter why have taxes at all? I think the answer is that there has to be SOME revenue to create at least SOME assurance that the borrowed money along with the interest will be paid. Otherwise we couldn't borrow. So we know that 0 tax revenue wouldn't work. And you can start going up from there. $1, $2, $10000, $1000000... At some point you'll cross a threshold where there is enough tax revenue to provide the necessary assurance. At what point does the difference between revenue and spending become untenable?

That is one sided thinking.
Taxes are generated when money changes hands. The faster it changes hands, and the more money in the transaction, the more tax revenue is collected.
Explain to me how you can calculate that to determine the "threshold".
Answer: It's anyone's best guess because there is no formula that will tell you what the exact money velocity will be, or the exact amount of that money being moved. The only thing the government can, and should, do is create an environment where, based on historical data, velocity and amount of transactions improve.

[kalm]

There's something to that but the point is THEY are making a big deal about saying it won't add to the deficits and telling people it won't.

Otherwise: I do think that, theoretically, there has got to be SOME limit on how much we can rely on increasing the debt to fund things. I mean, if how much we borrow doesn't matter why have taxes at all? I think the answer is that there has to be SOME revenue to create at least SOME assurance that the borrowed money along with the interest will be paid. Otherwise we couldn't borrow. So we know that 0 tax revenue wouldn't work. And you can start going up from there. $1, $2, $10000, $1000000... At some point you'll cross a threshold where there is enough tax revenue to provide the necessary assurance. At what point does the difference between revenue and spending become untenable?

That is one sided thinking.
Taxes are generated when money changes hands. The faster it changes hands, and the more money in the transaction, the more tax revenue is collected.
Explain to me how you can calculate that to determine the "threshold".
Answer: It's anyone's best guess because there is no formula that will tell you what the exact money velocity will be, or the exact amount of that money being moved. The only thing the government can, and should, do is create an environment where, based on historical data, velocity and amount of transactions improve.

Or, you can just tax enough to meet expenses/cut enough to meet revenue.

Republicans are in total control. Time for fiscal responsibility. Ready, set, go!

[CAA Flagship]

That is one sided thinking.
Taxes are generated when money changes hands. The faster it changes hands, and the more money in the transaction, the more tax revenue is collected.
Explain to me how you can calculate that to determine the "threshold".
Answer: It's anyone's best guess because there is no formula that will tell you what the exact money velocity will be, or the exact amount of that money being moved. The only thing the government can, and should, do is create an environment where, based on historical data, velocity and amount of transactions improve.

Or, you can just tax enough to meet expenses/cut enough to meet revenue.

Republicans are in total control. Time for fiscal responsibility. Ready, set, go!

The Republicans are NOT in total control. There are restrictions on what they can do due to reconciliation rules. They are trying to figure out a way to work within those restrictions and still do enough to fuel the economy. For example, there is no point in cutting Corporate taxes unless it gets cut down to a level that it will do some good. But it's not easy to do and keep the package within their limits.

I'm not saying that this plan is anywhere near perfect. And it may not even work because of all the restrictions.
There are so many elements to a tax plan and so many opinions on the level of importance for each. It will be an improvement compared to what we have now, but fall way short of what is optimum.

[BDKJMU]

That is one sided thinking.
Taxes are generated when money changes hands. The faster it changes hands, and the more money in the transaction, the more tax revenue is collected.
Explain to me how you can calculate that to determine the "threshold".
Answer: It's anyone's best guess because there is no formula that will tell you what the exact money velocity will be, or the exact amount of that money being moved. The only thing the government can, and should, do is create an environment where, based on historical data, velocity and amount of transactions improve.

Or, you can just tax enough to meet expenses/cut enough to meet revenue.

Republicans are in total control. Time for fiscal responsibility. Ready, set, go!

The Republicans have a Supermajority with 60 in the Se are? Who knew?

[kalm]

Or, you can just tax enough to meet expenses/cut enough to meet revenue.

Republicans are in total control. Time for fiscal responsibility. Ready, set, go!

The Republicans are NOT in total control. There are restrictions on what they can do due to reconciliation rules. They are trying to figure out a way to work within those restrictions and still do enough to fuel the economy. For example, there is no point in cutting Corporate taxes unless it gets cut down to a level that it will do some good. But it's not easy to do and keep the package within their limits.

I'm not saying that this plan is anywhere near perfect. And it may not even work because of all the restrictions.
There are so many elements to a tax plan and so many opinions on the level of importance for each. It will be an improvement compared to what we have now, but fall way short of what is optimum.

Yes, I'm sure if they had the super majority they immediately start making the tough decisions.

[CAA Flagship]

Getting close to seeing what the final version will be.

[Ivytalk]

Looks like Senator Corker is on board. It should pass now. Fuck you, Schumer.

[93henfan]

Like all major legislation, there are pot-sweeteners inserted to win the support of hesitant legislators.

One, a carve-out for Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, will open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling.

The 19.6-million-acre refuge in northeastern Alaska is one of the most pristine areas in the United States and is home to polar bears, caribou, migratory birds and other wildlife.

Murkowski and other Republicans say drilling can be done safely with new technology, while ensuring a steady energy supply for West Coast refineries.

Safely. Right. Wink, wink.

This is the one thing about the GOP (shitting all over the planet for short-term corporate greed) that I could do without.

[kalm]

Like all major legislation, there are pot-sweeteners inserted to win the support of hesitant legislators.

One, a carve-out for Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, will open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling.

The 19.6-million-acre refuge in northeastern Alaska is one of the most pristine areas in the United States and is home to polar bears, caribou, migratory birds and other wildlife.

Murkowski and other Republicans say drilling can be done safely with new technology, while ensuring a steady energy supply for West Coast refineries.

Safely. Right. Wink, wink.

This is the one thing about the GOP (shitting all over the planet for short-term corporate greed) that I could do without.

Money and personal gain trump fiscal responsibility and democracy. In fact, democracy is a dirty word for conks. They don't care for it one bit. It's too close to collectivism. Democrats at least pay lip service to it but still favor the establishment so they're really not all that much better.

[CAA Flagship]

Looks like Senator Corker is on board. It should pass now. Fuck you, Schumer.

[Ivytalk]

Safely. Right. Wink, wink.

This is the one thing about the GOP (shitting all over the planet for short-term corporate greed) that I could do without.

Money and personal gain trump fiscal responsibility and democracy. In fact, democracy is a dirty word for conks. They don't care for it one bit. It's too close to collectivism. Democrats at least pay lip service to it but still favor the establishment so they're really not all that much better.

So democracy = collectivism in the kalmunist lexicon. OK. Carry on.

[kalm]

Money and personal gain trump fiscal responsibility and democracy. In fact, democracy is a dirty word for conks. They don't care for it one bit. It's too close to collectivism. Democrats at least pay lip service to it but still favor the establishment so they're really not all that much better.

So democracy = collectivism in the kalmunist lexicon. OK. Carry on.

I see reading comprehension is not a strength in the Ivies.

[Ivytalk]

So democracy = collectivism in the kalmunist lexicon. OK. Carry on.

I see reading comprehension is not a strength in the Ivies.

Beats East Spokumpton Directional.