Republican Tax Plan Revealed

[Breccia]

Of course... Incoming great depression 2.0.

I doubt they're predicting that. But, they are directly refuting any claims that the tax cut for the rich will pay for itself. Incidentally, despite promising he would, there has been nothing from the Treasury, so all we have is the Senate's own estimate of "no it won't, it'll be $1 trillion short".

Also...has ANYONE seen ANYONE claim that this will actually create jobs? We've all seen "millions kicked off health insurance" but this is the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. What, specifically, causes jobs, and how much? Surely someone has something?

Anyone?

- - - Updated - - -

I wasn't 100% confident in my details so I plopped "to my understanding" in front of it as a disclaimer that my facts may be off.

Yeah, but what you said was "to my understanding, two plus two equals four".

The dropoff happens at 2025. That's not open for debate. That's the literal letter of the law.

[Felya]

Also...has ANYONE seen ANYONE claim that this will actually create jobs? We've all seen "millions kicked off health insurance" but this is the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. What, specifically, causes jobs, and how much? Surely someone has something?

Anyone?

It cannot... unemployment numbers are the lowest in 20 years. We are at 4.1% unemployment, with 6.5 million unemployed. With the trillion being added to the deficit, each of those people can get a check for over 150k, or 15k every year, for the 10 years that it is projected to accumulate.

[Shadowferal]

If it was mentioned earlier, then it bears repeating:
GOP’s List of Economists Backing Tax Cut Includes Ghosts, Office Assistants, Ex-Felons, and a Sprinkling of Real Economists

[tyrlaan]

Yeah, but what you said was "to my understanding, two plus two equals four".

The dropoff happens at 2025. That's not open for debate. That's the literal letter of the law.

Yeah, so then my understanding is correct. I wasn't sure if the droppoff was 2025 or 2027. It appears I was correct with 2025.

And the two plus two equals four situation is thanks to this crap tax bill and the deceptive numbermancy they used to draft it.


I mean, did you just really want to say to me "hey, your understanding is correct", or are you giving me shit over...? Hell I don't even know what you might be giving me shit over.

[Kujako]

Yeah, but what you said was "to my understanding, two plus two equals four".

No, no. Two plus two equals five once you factor in the growth of two due to the tax cuts!

[Breccia]

I mean, did you just really want to say to me "hey, your understanding is correct", or are you giving me shit over...?

100% the former.

[kaelleria]

I doubt they're predicting that. But, they are directly refuting any claims that the tax cut for the rich will pay for itself. Incidentally, despite promising he would, there has been nothing from the Treasury, so all we have is the Senate's own estimate of "no it won't, it'll be $1 trillion short".

Also...has ANYONE seen ANYONE claim that this will actually create jobs? We've all seen "millions kicked off health insurance" but this is the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. What, specifically, causes jobs, and how much? Surely someone has something?

Anyone?

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, but what you said was "to my understanding, two plus two equals four".

The dropoff happens at 2025. That's not open for debate. That's the literal letter of the law.

I was being a bit hyperbolic, but there is evidence for this in the past -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-out-of-1929/

[tyrlaan]

100% the former.

Cool. Internet. Words. Inference. And all that.

Glad I was misinterpreting.

[Paranoid Android]

I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley (R-Iowa) told the Des Moines Register, “as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”

Research was done this affects roughly 61 families in Iowa with population of almost 2 million. So Chuck basically called 99% of Iowans deplorables, huh?

[Zan15]

guess the stock market did not even like the plan


.2% gain on dow

1% loss on nasdaq

.1% loss on sp 500

.2% on russell 2000


possibly all the bump has already happened because of the plan, now the break back down to reality?

a lot of really huge profitable companies are really not going to save a whole lot of money since they already pay dirt low taxes to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -

Move to a state with a lower or no income tax. Everyone else shouldnt be subsidizing your high state taxes in California, New Jersey, and New York because those states cannot manage their money right and have to gouge their residents for more in taxes than other low tax states. Maybe you should demand your state legislature cut spending and lower your state income taxes

- - - Updated - - -



Another solution would be for you to work 1st shift and your wife work second shift or vice versa and then one of you would always be home to take care of the kids, but that would require personal responsibility. Youd rather force me to pay for your daycare via tax extortion

So then why do those rich states have to subsidize all the other states with higher medicaid funding for instance?
why should say CT not get the same 78% medicaid funding that Mississippi gets instead of the 50% they currently get? or 71% SC gets. etc etc? Hell even TX gets 53%.

Medicaid is just a single example, there are many others just look at things like education, highway funding, etc. none of its is fair and many of those rich states subsidize other states that are dirt poor.



why does SC get 4 dollars for every 1 dollar they send to feds. Why does CA get back less then 1 dollar?




Why shouldn't all states get the exact same % of federal funds?


CT would get an additional 1.5-2 billion dollars in their state budget if they just got medicaid funding equal to other states. That would wipe out their deficit and let them reduce income taxes like you want them to.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah unlike most self aggrandizing liberals, I comprehend that nothing is free and all positives come at the cost of another's deficit. The irony of course being that liberals who are too far removed from feeling the ill-effect prey upon those in the most need for votes.

Secondly, I don't know if you noticed this at all but health premiums are already stupidly high for most people unless they aren't paying for them at all. I wonder which President and Congress saw to that desthnell?

Secondly, I agree with the removal of the mandate. In my eyes and others, it was illegal. It was a tax and one that forced many to decide how they were going to get fucked. Not something I personally respect from a government. But then again.... That is probably my privlegde speaking. I mean, it was $1000 a month for premiums for my wife and I in 2011 and we made too much to qualify for ACA...us college students making a combined income of 46k..what shit heads we were.

i have to call shenannagaaans on this one.

how on earth would you pay closet to 1k on the exchange for family of 2.....making only 48k.

what state was this in?

[cainejw]

*snip graph*

This is the actual near-current breakdown.

No, that's a breakdown for FY 2015 -- 2 years ago.

Obama's proposed 2016 budget: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/node/320071
CBO's 2016 infographic: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52408
CBO's 2017 outcomes: https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget
Trump's proposed 2018 budget: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52846

If you're going to present data, please present data that are current. Not data from 2 years ago. Especially when discussing presidential budgets over time.

The fact that you claim Lockheed Marin is "flush with cash" is besides the point (it also isn't that simple, as specific divisions must remain profitable, I can elaborate if you care). The United States has a specific need to spend more.

No, it's not besides the point. It is the point. Especially when you think the U.S. has a need to spend more on defense while simultaneously spending the most in defense to vastly outshadow other developed nations because we need a glorious military. The US has a need for quality health care, strong infrastructure, good education, and a social safety net that doesn't see people as opportunities for cut profits to then be reallocated to corporations and banks. Of course, it may be besides YOUR point, but that's distinctly different from THE point. Your point is that America does not have a need for health care, and that the need for defense far outweighs the need for health care. While I will certainly agree that healthcare costs are out of control, I'm not going to agree that health care is less important than a few planes and boats to flaunt how rich we are.

Right now American commitments are financed to the tun of around $600 billion. With respect to those commitments, it's underresourced by about $100 billion. Maybe as high as $150 billion. This is not an abstract thing here. Specficially, the following is at issue:

- On Navy ships, crews are smaller, deploying longer and training less. This has lead to two accidents in the past year.

Incorrect. It was not the staffing that is being blamed. It is the training procedures: https://www.npr.org/2017/09/07/54911...ship-accidents . Additionally, while it is true that the active force is decreasing in size, the National Guard and Reserves can, and do, fill the gap in wartime along with inactive Guard.

I think I'm spotting an issue with purposefully restricting your data to fit your point. By the way, military participation has never been above 10% in recent times and has been below 1% of Americans since after Vietnam. It's currently lower at about .5%, but post-conscription life may have a role here.

- Two dozen navy ships are current laid up without the funds to do routine maintenance on them.

Because their commander in chief keeps them at sea for a large amount of time: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/w...t-hearing.html . This results in not being able to do maintenance. Additionally a complaint here is that standards have increased thus the Navy has allowed certifications to drop versus meeting said standards. Such as, for example, training people in person instead of by DVD as instituted by President Bush. The Navy is quite clear that readiness, not staffing, is the problem.

Additionally, logically speaking here, wouldn't it stand to reason that a smaller force would need fewer ships, planes, etc to maintain therefore retiring old craft is positive while we are spending on new craft, just not extravagantly? For some reason, the argument here seems to be "They don't have enough staff to keep up their retiring and damaged things, so we need more staff to maintain what we're retiring or can already maintain if we trained the staff we have!"

- Air Force pilots are currently flying around 100 hours a year, down over the last eight years from nearly double that. That translates from flying three to four times per week to flying once or twice.

If you're speaking of Gen. Goldfein's testamony, he was clear again that this is readiness, not staffing. There are 660,000 servicemembers according to Goldfein. There are roughly about 880k Guard, I believe. Goldfein has also been clear that one of the culprits of the current state of affairs if sequestration passed in 2011. Goldfein reported 13 fighter squadrons were grounded in 2015 due to sequestration. Additionally, Goldfein was clear that the number you cite is home station. Not forward station. This is purposefully deceptive of you to restrict only to home station flyers.

- Much of the Boeing 707-based support aircraft from the 1970s and 1980s is reaching end of life and needs to be replaced.

Use of the 707 was very restricted in the armed services -- 3 in all -- with more specialized craft. Interestingly, this jet is the variant that is also used as an Air Force One. I wonder if there's a reason this is an ultra-important replacement now with only 3!

-Iconic platforms like the F-16, F-15, B-1B and the Los Angeles Clas submarine are reaching end of life and are being replaced at a rate of well less than 1 for 1. For example, the Air Force takes ownership of around 40-60 F-35s per year, but must retire ~150-200 F-16s. And the F-15 is in worse shape due to metal fatagiue and there is no replacement for those.

The F-35 is replacing the F-16, though some argue it is inferior due to its multiple use craft design. The answer for the F-15 problem is retrofitting the F-16 with specialized items. The B-1 bomber is being replaced by the B-21. Goldfein was again clear that they had the parts, the supervision, and the maintainers for all of these crafts to use them optimally. Note you that this will cost, just for the B-21 replacement, $23.5 billion. Totally within the abilities of both the new and old budget for the 400 planes in the bid.

However, importantly, we cannot afford CHIP which costs $14 billion for 35.6 million individuals, but we can accord approximately $14 billion for 200 planes to replace the ones that we can maintain, we have the parts, but we need the qualifications to match the certifications. But they don't look as cool and they've been flying a while, so we need new toys.

35,600,000 children who will live for 60-80 years.
200 planes that we'll use for 30 years.

Americans born since 1980 have lived in a priveged world where their country's military supremacy was unquestioned. It has spoiled them rotten when it comes to the realities of maintaining that supremacy.

Do you need a moist towelette? I can get you one. Maybe even close the door and leave you and the military alone for a few minutes?

Defense dollars are just as, if not more, essential an expenditure at this juncture than healthcare spending. Why? The long lead in time. If the US found itself needing to do that replacement job on the F-15 or build a successor to it say, around 2028, it would be too late. It would take years... even decades... to get going. We have to spend now so that we have it then.

This argument applies to health as much as military. Watch.

Healthcare dollars are just as, if not more, essential an expenditure at this juncture than defense spending. Why? The long lead in time. If the US found itself needing to do that replacement job on healthcare or build a successor to it say, around 2028, it would be too late. It would take years... even decades... to get going. We have to spend now so that we have it then.

A better argument would be that the military spending is temporary while CHIP spending, as an example, is per year over X years. Problem there is that the spending budgets typically carry year to year barring things like sequestration.

The "iconic" US Military we've all grown up with is going away. That age is over. It won't be back for for the rest of our lifetimes. We have to spend heavily to maintain our security at an equal level in the emerging age of rewewed great power competition.

If it's already gone, and that age is over, why bother trying to make it as glorious as it was in the past? Why not spend money on people who need health care NOW versus planes that we will need in 20 years? After all, it is American lives that drive the economy. Not American planes.

[LaserSharkDFB]

hey guys

guys

you remember

you remember how these assholes scribbled together their tax plan at the last minute and rammed it through

it turns out that

y'know

that may have been a dumb idea because they accidentally prevented corporations from getting money back from any deductions whatsoever

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...eductions.html

Eventually, he came upon the corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT). At present, most corporations face a 35 percent (statutory) rate on their income. But by availing themselves of various tax credits and deductions, most companies can get their actual rates down far below that figure. To put a limit on just how far, the corporate AMT prevents companies from paying any less than 20 percent on their profits (or, more precisely, on the profits that they fail to hide overseas).

The GOP had originally intended to abolish the AMT. But on Friday, with the clock running out — and money running short — Senate Republicans put the AMT back into their bill. Unfortunately for McConnell, they forgot to lower the AMT after doing so.

This is a big problem. The Senate bill brings the normal corporate rate down to 20 percent — while leaving the alternative minimum rate at … 20 percent. The legislation would still allow corporations to claim a wide variety of tax credits and deductions — it just renders all them completely worthless. Companies can either take no deductions, and pay a 20 percent rate — or take lots of deductions … and pay a 20 percent rate.

With this blunder, Senate Republicans have achieved the unthinkable: They’ve written a giant corporate tax cut that many of their corporate donors do not like.

Of course, there's no way this will stand as is. But it's (A) hilarious that they still can't do something big without screwing up, and (B) horrifying that they'll completely remove the minimum tax rate, so it's conceivable (however unlikely) that corporations could end up owing no taxes.

[Gray_Matter]

Anecdotal discussions about the cost of individual premiums are next to worthless in this forum - unless people are just asking for genuine advice, arguments based on personal experience are pointless.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that you're trying to help.

That was to be my next point. People are using anecdotal evidence (often based on selective/old memories), "How does this effect me now" mentality and Op Eds or emotive videos when considering this tax bill. Someone might remember a health insurance amount of $1000 where in reality it might have been a $100 increase from $500 to $600. That's the way the mind works. Something happens and you get angry at the time and remember it a certain way but the reality is far from the truth.

On the how does this effect me now side, it's easy to look at it as a tax break. But that doesn't take into account any increases in insurance and also it doesn't look how what effect it will have in 5 and in 10 years from now. It doesn't look at what the effect will be on the economy either.

On the Op Ed side, people are looking at op eds all over the show which tend to focus on one thing or another. Almost everyone has a stake in one way or another, especially people who write op eds. Hopefully now that the bull is out in full, we will be able to get some more independent analysis. Short and long term. Most of the independent analysis I have seen so far (economists, centrist think tanks, etc) has been very negative so I am not holding my breath on that changing much.

- - - Updated - - -

Seems to me that doubling the standard deduction will lower everyone's taxes

They almost doubled the standard but removed the personal exemptions. So for example, a family of 4 would have their standard deduction increased by $11300 but lose $16200 from their personal exemptions. Only people who have no kids are better off on that side. The moment it's 2 people with 1 kid, they start losing out. The tax rate decrease saves them from losing out overall but that only works for people who weren't itemizing their deductions. The beauty, for the GoP, of the tax rate change is that rich people benefit but a much bigger margin than people lower down on the income scale because the tax rate changes are almost offset by the deduction changes for lower income people but the tax rate changes for the rich people far outweigh their deduction changes.

[Breccia]

hey guys

I ninja'd that, but I'm still waiting for a more, erm, authoritative source to say so. Ideally, a Democratic Senator.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, the House GOP nearly tanked their own tax cut for the rich because the Freedom Caucus nearly rebelled over the government funding bill.

Like I said: every GOP member knows full well they're needed, and they can ask for whatever they want. They demanded consessions from the GOP, including at least the date funding would expire: Dec 30, not Dec 22.

[Shadowferal]

Passage of Senate Tax Bill Puts R&D Tax Credit in Doubt

Unintended consequence of late decision to keep the corporate alternative minimum tax could be loss of some tax breaks; companies push back
Late Friday, just hours before the Senate voted for the bill, Republicans decided to preserve the corporate alternative minimum tax instead of repealing it as planned. The change gave them money for lawmakers' other priorities, but it could force many companies to lose tax breaks the bill's authors intended to protect.

[Deleted]

I love their plan. Poor people should get their shit together to become better humans. There is no excuse - if you are not needed you should fucking care to be needed next year.

[Blur4stuff]

So if all poor people got their shit together they would all simultaneously have high paying jobs? No one would have low paying jobs?

That would be interesting to see.

[Xeones]

I love their plan. Poor people should get their shit together to become better humans. There is no excuse - if you are not needed you should fucking care to be needed next year.

This just in, having food in your local super market is not needed.

Care to tell me how I should evolve to no longer need food?

[tyrlaan]

I love their plan. Poor people should get their shit together to become better humans. There is no excuse - if you are not needed you should fucking care to be needed next year.

Isn't this just flaming or trolling at this point? I mean a modicum of research or common sense is sufficient to realize how ignorant and hateful this stance is.

Surely this can't be genuine.

[Thekri]

So if all poor people got their shit together they would all simultaneously have high paying jobs? No one would have low paying jobs?

That would be interesting to see.

Of course not, the key takeaway here isn't that all poor people can become rich people, it is that poor people will always be poor people, so screw them.

I get that Republican's aren't the social welfare people, neither am I, but seriously, these guys have jumped over to actually hating poor people.