Republican Tax Plan Revealed

[Paranoid Android]

So holy Bleep I see this is being quoted from reputable source.

@RepChrisCollins (R-NY) on tax reform: "My donors are basically saying, 'Get it done or don’t ever call me again.'"

A moment of clarity from the GOP Congressman.

[Breccia]

So holy Bleep

Are you surprised that the GOP works for the interest of the rich, or that they slapped down an ultimatum?

- - - Updated - - -

No, fuck that, THIS is the surprise.

Cruz: It’s a mistake for House bill to raise taxes

The fuck?

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Tuesday criticized the House GOP tax plan for likely raising taxes on individuals in high-tax states such as New York and California and called for language to repeal the individual mandate to produce more revenue.

Cruz called raising taxes on people in wealthy, staunchly Democratic states such as New York and California "a mistake."

Cruz has teamed up with fellow conservative Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in calling for tax reform to include language repealing ObamaCare’s tax penalty on people who don’t buy health insurance.

The provision would raise an estimated $300 billion to $400 billion over the next decade, which Cruz and other Senate conservatives say could be used to lower individual tax rates even further.

“There are some taxpayers who are losing exemptions, particularly in some high-tax states like New York or California that could conceivably be paying higher taxes. I think that is a mistake. I think tax reform needs to cut taxes for everybody,” Cruz told reporters at a press conference Tuesday.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that the House bill would raise taxes on one-third of all middle-class families next year.

Now Cruz is not a saint. He is arguing for removing the individual ACA mandate as part of tax reform. But he appears to be against this bill in its current form, because it raises taxes on the poor/middle class in blue states.

Ouch.

- - - Updated - - -

From TheHill's live coverage:

A new analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation

"Who?"

The Senate.

found that some 61 percent would see their tax bill fall in the first year of the Republican tax plan, while 8.3 percent would see a hike.

Almost a third of taxpayers would not see a change of more than $100 in their favor or against them.

According to the analysis, which was requested by Rep. Richard Neal (Mass.), the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, those differences would change over time.

By 2027, Only 46.2 percent of taxpayers would have a lower tax bill, and 19.5 percent would see their bills go up.

A significant portion of the middle class would see their taxes rise over time.

By 2027, for example, 22.5 percent of those making $40,000 to $50,000 per year would see taxes go up by over $100, as would 23.7 percent of those making $50,000 to $75,000 and 25.9 percent of those earning between $75,000 and $100,000.

The wealthy would see the greatest changes from the tax plan. In 2027, 57 percent of those earning over $1 million would have lower taxes, and 42.4 percent would have higher taxes.

[Gestopft]

Club for Growth: GOP tax bill 'fails the pro-growth test'

Of cooouuurrrrrse they would say that. Some of them might be dead in six years, so the estate tax simply must go right now. Never mind the sinister political strategizing that will put it squarely back in the ring in 2024: it's MY tax cut, and I want it NOW (Call JG Wentworth).

As an aside, I absolutely despise that the GoP and conservative groups have essentially captured for themselves the term "pro-growth."

[Paranoid Android]

Are you surprised that the GOP works for the interest of the rich, or that they slapped down an ultimatum?

- - - Updated - - -

No, fuck that, THIS is the surprise.

Cruz: It’s a mistake for House bill to raise taxes

The fuck?



Now Cruz is not a saint. He is arguing for removing the individual ACA mandate as part of tax reform. But he appears to be against this bill in its current form, because it raises taxes on the poor/middle class in blue states.

Ouch.

- - - Updated - - -

From TheHill's live coverage:



"Who?"

The Senate.

Well surprised this idiot admits he votes on who donates to him. I'm betting he did not mean the people who donates $10 at a time.

Also Darrell Issa, CA is against it since it hits his constituents of San Diego.

Yeah its so funny that it's sad they speak of tax cuts yet fight for keeping the tax cuts for the rich no matter the cost.

One more thing the Republican Party showing they appear to be a more regional party since the Red State representatives sure like to punish the Blue States. As you see blue state Republicans are getting bleeped.

[Zan15]

So holy Bleep I see this is being quoted from reputable source.



A moment of clarity from the GOP Congressman.

So basically his doners = 1% and corporations
shocked he admitted whom is over lords are

[Draco-Onis]

You have to admire the irony of republicans trying to pass a tax cut when the paradise papers leak, if democrats had any balls they would be all over this.

[Edge-]

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/35...rules-analysis

And more analysis out indicating that the GOP won't be able to force this through reconciliation in the Senate, at least not in its current form. Maybe trying to do super shady, super secretive last minute back-room drafting followed by immediately trying to rush it to the floor isn't the best legislative strategy.

You'd figure they may have learned that after the Trumpcare disaster, but I guess not : /

[Breccia]

And more analysis out indicating that the GOP won't be able to force this through reconciliation in the Senate, at least not in its current form.

Did you honestly think the Senate didn't have their own plan?

Well...they don't. But they will by Thursday!


"Mitch McConnnell demonstrates how much of the GOP tax cut for the rich will go to the middle class."

I will remind everyone that the Senate is the chamber with reconciliation rules, and as it is currently writtenas it is written right now[/url] the House bill will not get past those rules, making it require 60 votes when they might not have 50.

Of course, the House bill is...well, I'd like to use "evolving" but we know Republicans don't believe in science. Nor am I going to say their plan was "intelligently designed".

[cubby]

You have to admire the irony of republicans trying to pass a tax cut when the paradise papers leak, if democrats had any balls they would be all over this.

The democrats have been doing nothing but pointing to the absurdities that now constitute the GOP - over and over again pointing out unqualified Cabinet nominees (the Dept of Energy does what now? -Rick Perry) to horrendous acts of duplicitous and compromised behavior. We're just so flooded with it that each additional piece, even when it comes to bombshells like the paradise papers, lack significance because at this point they are just tears in the rain.

[Yvaelle]

I'm not versed enough in the non-business tax implications to talk about what the effect on estate tax, child deductions, etc, are - so I'll leave that to someone else.

However there are really two key things I see here:

1. A deduction in the Corporate Tax rate from 35% down to 20% means an apparent decline in tax revenue of $1.5T over the next ten years, this is increased deficit = more debt.

2. "implementing a one-time repatriation tax on profits overseas." = a tax holiday for corporations to transfer earnings from overseas tax havens back into the US at no charge (no tax).

Regarding topic 1, more debt. I thought you republicans and conservatives hated debt? Oh no wait, that's all nonsense talking points - right wing parties consistently add more to deficits and debts than left wing parties in both the US and Canada. The 5 worst US presidents for adding to the debt, by order of most % debt they added (excluding Obama for a moment), are:

1. George Bush Jr. (R)
2. George Bush Sr. (R)
3. Dwight Eisenhower (R)
4. Richard Nixon (R)
5. Harry Truman (D)

It's also worth noting that while a Democrat does make the list - Harry Truman presided as POTUS from 1945-1953: the period of US recovery from World War II. He has far and away the best reason to be adding to national debt, because he had a country to rebuild out of broken people and war - and he did that. Further, it's worth noting, he's the only "Democrat" on the list prior to the Southern Strategy: which is to say, he was a right wing party leader at the time. So if you drop the party names, 5/5 worst US presidents for adding to national debt are all right wingers.

"But what about Obama?!?!" I hear you seething & soiling yourselves in abject rage.

I excluded him from the above list because the full effect of his policies are not yet realized. Currently, despite Trump being POTUS, we're still living under Obama era tax policies - and until Trump's policies are realized and begin to affect the economy over Obama's, we won't know the full effect of Obama era policies: that lag time between taking office and when your policies begin to impact the economy is often 1-2 years. That's also why when Obama took office right after Bush, he was immediately hit with $3 Trillion in supposed debt - even though he hadn't implemented any policies of his own yet: because Bush had time-bombed the economy for the day after he left office. So that $3T time bomb? That's properly attributed to Bush Jr, not Obama. The same is true for the economy right now - Trump has implemented nothing yet - the current economy is the result of Obama policies, and probably will be for 6-12 months depending on how fast Trump can get stuff like this tax proposal into effect.

Based on what we know so far of Obama, excluding the $3T impact of Bushes time-bomb, Obama might rank between Eisenhower and Nixon, but he's got ~zero chance of chance of cracking the top 3. As an absolute number he added trillions to the debt, so if you just compare dollar values it's always going to look insane, but a blowjob used to cost a nickel back in Truman's days - so comparing on absolute dollar value is idiotic: hence why we use % debt growth.

All talk of growing the economy so much that growth offsets increased deficits and debts is hogwash. There is no serious academic evidence to support that common claim. Usually they want to drag out the Laffer Curve. Laffer would be the first one to tell you it's being misused by right wing politicians (and he himself is staunchly right wing). The curve was developed in the Reagan era and we didn't have a strong idea at the time of where on the curve we were. We do now, and it's the opposite of where Laffer & Reagan originally thought. Laffer has grudgingly accepted that, the Reaganites still have not.


Topic 2: Implementing a one-time repatriation tax on overseas profits. This will be sold as trying to encourage US companies to bring their money back to the US from overseas tax havens. Sounds like a noble thing right? Except that's not what it is.

If you are wealthy (corporation or individually) and wanted to have your money in an offshore account, you already did/do. If you are individually wealthy, you like to put your money into an overseas tax haven as a corporation, then have that company make your investments for you. In effect, you are making no earnings in the US - but your Bahamas corporation is actively invested in US companies, making billions off capital gains. Of course, the Bahamas has no capital gains tax, no inheritance tax, no personal income tax, and no gift taxes (ex. if you want to gift money from your company to yourself).

So your company is making billions in unrealized capital gains (investments) every year, but because it's in the Bahamas it doesn't have to realize those gains, or even if it did it wouldn't have to pay capital gains tax. Meanwhile the IRS can't tax your corporations gains because it's from the Bahamas, and it can't tax your gains because the capital gains are unrealized. What this repatriation tax will allow corporations and the super rich to do, is realize their capital gains and offshore bank accounts, paying no tax to either country, then transfer that money back to US bank accounts.

In effect, this is how big companies and the super rich pay no taxes (and when they are still eligible to subsidies and deductions, effectively pay negative tax rates). You just keep your money in offshore entities, don't realize your capital gains during Democratic rule, get a Republican elected, have them give out a tax holiday like this repatriation tax exemption, and bam - pay no taxes. Sure, you have to park your money in an offshore account for 8 years at a time, and can't take it down to the Tesla dealership easily, but who cares when you can just repatriate $10B once a Republican is back in power and refill your cash account, that'll last ya through the next Dem right?

Repatriation tax holidays like this one, and Bush Jr's one, and Bush Sr's one, and Reagan's one, and Nixon's one - are most of why Republicans get elected, I think. The rest of politics really doesn't matter - money talks - and someone's cash account is getting dangerously low: they need to bring a few $B's back into the US, but they scoff at the idea of sharing any of it with the government or the plebs. That's why you can pretty much elect a shit-flinging orangutan if he promises he'll let the IRS do this money-laundering scheme for the super rich.

[Breccia]

Other developments:

1) White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney said Tuesday that President Trump won't sign a GOP tax plan if it raises taxes on the middle class. Few things.

A) Trump is lying. He'll sign the bill when it reaches his desk, even if it requires him to perform a vasectomy on a goat without anesthesia.

B) Mulvaney said this would happen based on the WH's own numbers. Which, of course, will say the middle class is okay no matter what. So even if Trump wasn't lying about whether he'd sign it, they'll just cover up the numbers anyhow. Remember, Trump said the average American would save $4,000 and nobody else on Earth backs him up. Nowhere near.

C) He also didn't specify how this would be measured, which will almost certainly involve looking at next year (before the cuts for the middle class expire) and ignoring people in SALT-heavy states. Also expect him to use the mean American, not the median American. Just sayin'

2) The Pascrell amendment, the one that replaces SALT and raises corporate taxes to keep it revenue neutral, was voted down. Expect all other SALT additions to face the same fate.

3) My favorite:

Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) blasted Democrats for playing political games by offering amendments designed to put Republicans on the spot.

"I know what's going on here, ladies and gentlemen, they're going to want to put me on the record to vote against something that I have supported," he said. "It's the politics of Washington D.C."

Reed asked Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) if he would commit to voting for the tax bill on the House floor if the Democrat's amendment to preserve the work opportunity tax credit is included. Kind replied by noting that his amendment is paid for but the overall bill still increases the deficit.

"That was not a yes or no answer," Reed said. "That is politics."

Reed said he supports the work opportunity tax credit but will vote against the amendment to move the ball forward on tax reform. He said he'll make sure the WOTC is continued after the tax bill is passed.

“I’m not going to engage in this political theater any longer,” Reed said.

Aww. Poor Reed. It's like he knows he's trapped in a box, with the reconciliation rules on one side, and all those voters on the other side, and a November deadline. Now he has to vote "no" on every single tax deduction or credit that was scrapped to keep the tax plan under budget, and just so we're clear, it isn't even there yet. So he accuses the Democrats of playing politics, when they're the ones who dug themselves into a hole.

Man, I hope this is the most unpleasant moment of his life. Still gonna pass, though.

- - - Updated - - -

2. "implementing a one-time repatriation tax on profits overseas." = a tax holiday for corporations to transfer earnings from overseas tax havens back into the US at no charge (no tax).

Related.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) offered an amendment that would tax foreign profits at the same rate as domestic ones, a critique of the Republican plan to create a territorial tax system.

“It’s just flat wrong that the corner pharmacy should have to pay a higher rate on its operations than [drugmaker] Pfizer pays,” Doggett said.

Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) said that the current plan wasn’t up to snuff.

“They way you’ve put it together, there will still be a major impetus for companies to move overseas and have their profits overseas.”

The Republican tax plan is meant to give U.S. companies operating abroad a more level playing field when competing with foreign companies. It moves the U.S. to a "territorial" tax system that exempts the dividends of corporations' foreign subsidiaries from U.S. tax.

Most peers to the U.S. have such a system, which the GOP says puts U.S. companies at a disadvantage and makes them susceptible to takeover.

“The additional tax burden faced by U.S. companies ... they become prime, rich companies for takeover from foreign companies,” said Rep. George Holding (R-.N.C).

It's not just bringing the money back. It's still tax incentive to earn the money overseas.

[Milchshake]

Other developments:

1) White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney said Tuesday that President Trump won't sign a GOP tax plan if it raises taxes on the middle class. Few things.

A) Trump is lying. He'll sign the bill when it reaches his desk, even if it requires him to perform a vasectomy on a goat without anesthesia.

This nicely describes the Republican voter base. They demand nothing from their politicians except that they stroke their egos and play to their prejudices. Naturally, their politics have been gradually filling up with incompetents and loons.

[Edge-]

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/35...-deficit-study

More bad news for the tax overhaul. Has there even been a favorable analysis of it, yet?

[Kujako]

B) Mulvaney said this would happen based on the WH's own numbers. Which, of course, will say the middle class is okay no matter what. So even if Trump wasn't lying about whether he'd sign it, they'll just cover up the numbers anyhow. Remember, Trump said the average American would save $4,000 and nobody else on Earth backs him up. Nowhere near.

Remember, Republicans have said that the "middle class" are those between 100 and 400 thousand dollar a year income earners.

[Breccia]

Wow. Wanna know how much trouble the Senate is in, trying to make this work?

They offered to delay the corporate tax cut by a full year.

This would save $100 billion. I'm...fairly sure that's not worth the immediate backlash this would cause amongst their donors.

[Felya]

You have to admire the irony of republicans trying to pass a tax cut when the paradise papers leak, if democrats had any balls they would be all over this.

Holly shit... I missed that:

According to the papers, United States Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross holds stakes in businesses which deal with Russian oligarchs Leonid Mikhelson and Gennady Timchenko who are subject to U.S. sanctions,[5] as well as Russian president Vladimir Putin's son-in-law Kirill Shamalov.[59] Other members of the Trump administration who appear in the documents include United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Gary D. Cohn, the director of the U.S. National Economic Council.[59] Overall, more than a dozen Trump cabinet members, major donors and advisers appear in the documents and are linked with offshore accounts. These include major donors Robert Mercer and Sheldon Adelson.[60][1]

The documents also revealed that Russian state organizations with ties to Putin pursued between 2009 and 2011 large investments in Facebook and Twitter via an intermediary—Russian-American entrepreneur Yuri Milner, who befriended Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg[61] and was a business associate of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law.[62]

American singer Madonna, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, and former NATO supreme commander in Europe General Wesley Clark are also named in the papers.[63]

Commenting on the Paradise Papers leak, United States Senator and 2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders warned of "rapid movement toward international oligarchy", saying, "The Paradise Papers shows how these billionaires and multinational corporations get richer by hiding their wealth and profits and avoid paying their fair share of taxes."[64] The Democratic leader in the US Senate, Chuck Schumer, and the ranking Democratic member of the Senate finance committee, Ron Wyden, issued a joint statement accusing Republicans of "pushing a reform of the tax code that fails to close egregious loopholes revealed by the leaks."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Papers

[Breccia]

Trump: My accountant says the GOP tax bill will cost me a lot of money.

Literally Everyone Else: Show us your taxes.

Trump: <silence>

[PosPosPos]

Remember, Republicans have said that the "middle class" are those between 100 and 400 thousand dollar a year income earners.

http://www.newsweek.com/tax-cuts-rep...s-trump-701094

It's worse than you think.

[Breccia]

Under the GOP tax cut for the rich, graduate students must pay taxes on the tuition waivers they receive for being graduate students. This means Donald Trump will pay a lower tax rate than pretty much every graduate student there is.

[Kujako]

Under the GOP tax cut for the rich, graduate students must pay taxes on the tuition waivers they receive for being graduate students. This means Donald Trump will pay a lower tax rate than pretty much every graduate student there is.

No, no.... remember Trump said that the tax plan wouldn't help him at all, in fact it would hurt him. Which I took as an admission that he's actually broke.