Republican Tax Plan Revealed

[Felya]

If someone were trying to deny that accessibility laws were a way to subsidize the disabled, I'd say they're pretty dishonest. The question is whether someone should subsidize the disabled, not whether the policy does so.

No, your question was about oppression. I don’t think you understand what accessibility laws are. I am not talking about disability taxes or someshit. I am talking about laws for ramps and access. Those that force employers to have a way, for people having access issues, to access their employment.

You are focusing too much on the identity, not the actual effect it aims to dampen. The issue is not the identity of a person as having a child, it’s the effect having a child has that is being dampened.

In any case, phrasing tax subsidies for parents through the lens of "oppression" is absolutely ridiculous. Receiving slightly less of a subsidy from people that make different life choices is hardly "oppression" by any reasonable definition.

What do you expect, when you focus on the identity of these people, instead of the intended impact of the action? Try a different tact... argue that the tax break is not necessary... that people don’t pay enough taxes... that we need the revenue. That way, no one will say shit about oppression. Don’t make it about identity politics and no one will say oppression.

Edit: You need to argue identity politics, because otherwise you are arguing for a tax increase on the middle class.

[Spectral]

No, your question was about oppression. I don’t think you understand what accessibility laws are. I am not talking about disability taxes or someshit. I am talking about laws for ramps and access. Those that force employers to have a way, for people having access issues, to access their employment.

Yeah, this is obviously a subsidy for the disabled. I think it's a good policy, but it's not even debatable that it's a subsidy.

You are focusing too much on the identity and the actual effect it aims to dampen. The issue is not the identity of a person as having a child, it’s the effect having a child has that is being dampened.

What do you expect, when you focus on the identity of these people, instead of the intended impact of the action? Try a different tact... argue that the tax break is not necessary... that people don’t pay enough taxes... that we need the revenue. That way, no one will say shit about oppression. Don’t make it about identity politics and no one will say oppression.

The intended effect is to subsidize people with kids. If you think it's a good policy, that's fine, most people agree with you. Claiming that it's "oppression" to subsidize them less is just comically pathetic though - it reads like the absence of a coherent argument rather than any sort of honest advocacy.

[Felya]

Yeah, this is obviously a subsidy for the disabled. I think it's a good policy, but it's not even debatable that it's a subsidy.

Who is debating this? You can call every tax cut or regulation a subsidy... the problem is that you are arguing against a subsidy to thousands of middle class families, that can be covered by a fraction of a cut to oil company subsidies. But, instead, those companies will get a tax cut, while recording record profits, and keep their subsidies.

The intended effect is to subsidize people with kids. If you think it's a good policy, that's fine, most people agree with you. Claiming that it's "oppression" to subsidize them less is just comically pathetic though - it reads like the absence of a coherent argument rather than any sort of honest advocacy.

No, if you are targeting to remove financial protections from people with children, you are oppressing them. You are not oppressing anyone, if you remove subsidies that aim to stabilize middle class finances, that have a common strain of having a child. The idea is that the spending for this family increases, to result in those funds going right back into the economy. The problem, that makes you sound like an asshole... so you need the caricatures of people making choices to have children... which will make people think it’s oppressive...

That is a choice you made... if you want to play identity politics, expect people to bitch about oppression. If you want to discuss the actual effect, celebrate a tax increase on the middle class. I know one is easier and let’s you bitch twice as much...

[Spectral]

Who is debating this? You can call every tax cut or regulation a subsidy... the problem is that you are arguing against a subsidy to thousands of middle class families, that can be covered by a fraction of a cut to oil company subsidies. But, instead, those companies will get a tax cut, while recording record profits, and keep their subsidies.

No, if you are targeting to remove financial protections from people with children, you are oppressing them. You are not oppressing anyone, if you remove subsidies that aim to stabilize middle class finances, that have a common strain of having a child. The idea is that the spending for this family increases, to result in those funds going right back into the economy. The problem, that makes you sound like an asshole... so you need the caricatures of people making choices to have children... which will make people think it’s oppressive...

That is a choice you made... if you want to play identity politics, expect people to bitch about oppression. If you want to discuss the actual effect, celebrate a tax increase on the middle class. I know one is easier and let’s you bitch twice as much...

We're going in circles at this point. I don't think your position is defensible in any way. You're literally saying that failing to subsidize someone's life choice is oppressing them and you seem to think this is compelling. I suppose your argument is a winning argument in terms of emotional ploys, but I think you're being spectacularly dishonest and doing nothing more than playing on people's pro-child biases.

[Felya]

We're going in circles at this point. I don't think your position is defensible in any way. You're literally saying that failing to subsidize someone's life choice is oppressing them and you seem to think this is compelling. I suppose your argument is a winning argument in terms of emotional ploys, but I think you're being spectacularly dishonest and doing nothing more than playing on people's pro-child biases.

I’m sure you meant figuratively, in the bold. Can I ask for a quote otherwise? Because I literally never said that... I explicitly am saying that the way you present the issue, is invoking identity politics, which has always resulted in screams about oppression. You are trying to hide behind identity politics, just so reality can get ignored and you get to bitch about “oppression”. A little personal accountability goes a very long way...

What emotional ploys exactly? You are bitching about people and choices of having a child, while I am pointing at the inevitability there of and the fact that the money goes right back into the economy, because of the nature of having another person in the family. A person, that cannot compensate for their own expanses.

Just because this is a tax increase on the middle class, doesn’t make my argument emotional. Just like you arguing that a child is a choice, not the fact that the tax credit is explicitly for the result, is anything, but emotional. Mostly because you are supporting a tax increase on the middle class...

[Mafic]

There's always been two really big problems with this type of thinking:

1. Millions of jobs are incredibly important and must be done. Our society would fall apart if they weren't. They are hard jobs and pay very little. This shouldn't be the case, especially when considering so many less important jobs pay so much.

2. It won't matter how hard people work or how smart they are if a small group at the top keep pooling the wealth and then using that wealth to maintain their unfair advantages.

If the "bootstraps" argument had any merit then there wouldn't be an income inequality issue in the USA or almost anywhere else. There are millions of hardworking people all over the world that don't get back what they put in.

This is true but I think that job insecurity drives people these days from moving onto better jobs.

1. Healthcare
2. Costs to move
3. Housing

To me it is clear that the assumption people would keep moving around the country like worker bees to find a better job hasn't come to fruition as corporate world had hoped would happen. Young Japanese men and women refuse to move within a few miles of their own country for their own companies they work for.

The attitude for most adults these days is why go for a "better job" If you have healthcare covered,housing and a job that is secure?

Plus, it doesn't help that older generations are working longer which is why I am a big advocate of lowering the retirement age.

[Grapemask]

We're going in circles at this point. I don't think your position is defensible in any way. You're literally saying that failing to subsidize someone's life choice is oppressing them and you seem to think this is compelling. I suppose your argument is a winning argument in terms of emotional ploys, but I think you're being spectacularly dishonest and doing nothing more than playing on people's pro-child biases.

The problem is that you fail to see economic factors as a form of oppression, and that's one of the key things that's keeping lower classes very oppressed right now. You have to reach a certain level of high income for cost to not be one of the most significant factors in having a child, because children are very expensive. They also require time, which is time not spent working. Even if that time is compensated, that compensation would only pay for what had previously only been for you, yourself, but now must cover an additional expense. If you can't get compensation, you're paying for a child and shrinking your income. You've effectively lowered yourself to a different class and limited your economic options.

Additionally, you round children down to just a life choice, like choosing to get ketchup with your fries. Children are a basic requirement for society to function. If no one is offering compensation for children, less people are having them. Less children is a fast way to end up in a work force crisis. Just ask China. In a world that is seeing massive shrinkages in birth rates, there needs to be either more incentive to have children or far more immigration, and we already know that immigration is a hot button topic. At least (most) everyone agrees they like kids.

[wunksta]

Yeah, but Republicans have a different definition of "Middle Class" than the rest of us:

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

Honestly, everything makes sense when you consider what Trump has said about the middle class. Every time he refers to the 'middle class' just replace it with '450k salary earners'.

[Breccia]

The desirability of an expensive benefit isn't really relevant - providing an expensive benefit to one class of people is additional compensation and would generally be considered an illegal form of discrimination

It would be, if the class was involuntary, like homosexual or black. Or religious.

Having/raising children is neither of those. I'd be willing to bet there are some job offers that 100% legally discriminate against people who have kids. Regardless, this isn't about paying Latinos $500 extra per year. This is about allowing good employees, who happen to have kids, to continue being good employees.

Also, I challenge that +$600 is subsidizing to a "massive" degree. Half the GOP wanted more.

EDIT: However, just to be clear, I fully accept this is merely a political idealogical difference between us. I don't agree with your position, and that is all. This isn't about nuking Italy or some shit.

EDIT EDIT: God dammit, see, this is why I used to make lists.

The thing with child care, is the same with (public) transportation funds. Employers used to pay for those and it worked exactly the same way and the tax cut for the rich dumps those, too.

Also, and I didn't even know about this, the tax cut for the rich seems 100% at odds with the Infrastructure bill, as TheHill reports:

For transportation advocates, one of the most disappointing tax provisions in the GOP measure would eliminate tax breaks for private activity bonds.

The bonds are considered a critical tool for public-private partnerships, which are supposed to be a cornerstone of Trump’s infrastructure bill.

Private activity bonds are issued for private projects and have been used by businesses to finance a wide range of infrastructure projects around the country, including roads, highways, housing, hospitals and airports.

San Francisco International Airport just issued $179 million of private activity bonds to help make facility upgrades.

And the American Association of Port Authorities said tax-exempt private activity bonds are expected to play a major role in helping its members and their private sector partners complete $155 billion in planned port infrastructure investment over the next four years.

But the bonds have also faced some criticism, with a GOP summary sheet saying, “the federal government should not subsidize the borrowing costs of private businesses.”

Under the GOP tax bill, interest on newly issued private activity bonds would no longer be tax-exempt. Ending the program would save $38.9 billion, according to a summary sheet.

There is growing concern that ending preferential tax treatment for the bonds could undermine the administration’s goal of incentivizing the private sector to help leverage $1 trillion worth of overall infrastructure investment in the U.S.

More on topic: the GOP continues to thrash with conflicting ideologies and a short-ass timeline. Paul Ryan continues to float the idea that the ACA personal mandate be part of the tax cut for the rich. Unsure if this will add, or remove, votes, as the House and Senate appear to disagree on it.

- - - Updated - - -

A lot of the problem simply comes down to the GOP being forced to lie to sell this plan. For example, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said "Look, we are cutting rates. We're not raising rates. So, this is a tax cut." This completely glosses over the many deductions that are being removed. McCarthy can't bring that up, because if he does, he has to admit the tax cut for the rich is, in fact, a tax cut for the rich, affecting the average American very little (and sometimes raising their rates). There is no honest depiction otherwise. It's just as dishonest as saying "look, your hourly wage is going up, so this is a pay raise" when you leave out that those 20 hours of overtime you work every week now count as normal, not time-and-a-half.

- - - Updated - - -

Can we even call it a tax "plan"? There are so many things still under consideration. Like this:

Multinationals grapple with Republican excise tax surprise

The Republican tax bill unveiled last week in the U.S. Congress could disrupt the global supply chains of large, multinational companies by slapping a 20-percent tax on cross-border transactions they routinely make between related business units.

European multinationals, some of which currently pay little U.S. tax on U.S. profits thanks to tax treaties and diversion of U.S. earnings to their home countries or other low-tax jurisdictions, could be especially hard hit if the proposed tax becomes law, according to some tax experts.

Others said the proposal could run afoul of international tax treaties, the World Trade Organization and other global standards that forbid the double taxation of profits if the new tax did not account for income taxes paid in other countries.

As proposed, the new tax rule would apply only to businesses with payments from U.S. units to foreign affiliates exceeding $100 million. The rule would not take effect until after 2018.

Cowards.

European companies that sell foreign-made products into the U.S. market through local distribution units could be among those most affected, said Michael Mundaca, co-director of the national tax department at the accounting firm Ernst & Young.

Such companies could end up paying tax on the transfers twice - first if they paid the excise tax in the United States and then at home where they are taxed now and where the new U.S. tax would not be accounted for without changes to bilateral tax treaties.

“That would be a structure that would at least initially be hit by the full force” of the excise tax, said Mundaca, a former U.S. Treasury Department assistant secretary for tax policy.

He said European officials would be registering concern. “I am sure they are making calls right now to their counterparts in the U.S. Treasury looking for some explanation ... and making the point that this might be contrary to treaty obligations.”

- - - Updated - - -

I did not see this coming.

The WSJ uses a paywall, but TheHill read the OP ED anyhow, in which Trump's tax plan is called...a tax on the rich to give to the poor.

Specifically, the "bubble" at the top, the short span of 46% marginal rate to even things out before it becomes 39.6%, is cited.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board is slamming the House GOP’s tax legislation, calling on the House Ways and Means Committee to fix the income-tax rate in this week’s markup.

“In other words, Republicans are embracing higher tax rates a la Democrats to redistribute the money to non-taxpayers a la Democrats,” the board wrote in an op-ed published Sunday. “Remind us again why college-educated suburbanites who are successful in business or the professions and are unenthralled with Donald Trump should vote Republican?”

The newspaper also called on the Senate Finance Committee to clean up the legislation should the House fail to do so.

“It’s no surprise, then, that Republicans are resorting to Democratic arguments that this is no big deal because these taxpayers can afford it,” the Journal said. “They’re also claiming this is kosher because the 1986 Reagan reform also had a bubble rate of 33% in addition to a top rate of 28%.”

The editorial comes after the newspaper in a Friday op-ed criticized the individual tax rates as “stealthy.”

House Republicans last week unveiled their legislation, which cuts the number of individual tax brackets from seven to four.

The Journal on Sunday went so far as to suggest that should the House pass the tax reform legislation, Democrats will win the majority in the 2018 midterms.

“If the Kevin Brady-Paul Ryan 45.6% bubble bracket becomes law, this will soon become the new top rate for everybody—perhaps when Nancy Pelosi is Speaker after 2018,” the Journal wrote.

- - - Updated - - -

Carried interest

Update: the tax cut for the rich now has a change which goes after carried interest.

But it also changes the meaning of the term "carried interest" so that basically nobody will be affected anyhow.

- - - Updated - - -

As of a half hour ago.

Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) grilled Thomas Barthold, the Joint Committee on Taxation's chief of staff, on how the tax plan would affect low-income people a few years out.

In 2023, he noted, people making between $20,000 and $40,000 a year would actually see their taxes go up. (See the first table on page 6 of the JCT distributional analysis.)

Barthold indicated that there would be 38 million people in those income ranges, who would on average see their taxes rise.

One reason that taxes for some could go up halfway into the decade is because certain credits in the bill are set to expire. Republicans put the expirations in to make the tax bill's math add up.

Budget hawks say they are gimmicks because they expect that any future Congress would feel intense political pressure to renew the credits. Extending the credits would lead to higher deficits, but lower the taxes in question, even though they're not part of the plan on the table.

Levin said that House Speaker Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) promises that the plan would help the middle class deserved "Four Pinocchios."

That's right: 38 million people, none of whom are rich, will see their (average) taxes go up.

There remains no objective way to call this anything other than a tax cut for the rich. We already knew it did little to nothing for the middle class -- which apparently goes up to $450k -- and nearly nothing for small businesses. Now we also know what it does to the poor. And 38 million is a LOT of people.

[Vyuvarax]

The number of silent changes to this bill are really disgusting, and no Republican will defend it or engage with how the bill works honestly. Don't let anyone talk about how the two parties are equal when one party stoops so low to please their donor class. Its embarrassing how blind and silent Republican voters are on how their party hurtsthe people around them.

[Resurgo]

... And 38 million is a LOT of people.

Took less than that to carry the presidency... should remind your representatives of that fact...

[Thekri]

You have got to love the political games they play. They set the taxes to jump up on a timer, due to expiring credits, and they use that number when counting the impact on the deficit. They use the immediate number to calculate the total savings to families, assuming the credits get extended. They do the same thing with the economy, counting revenue as if business is booming, and counting individual taxes as if no business or person makes any more then it does right now.

The really sad thing is that 95% of people won't call them on their bullshit.

[Breccia]

no Republican will defend it or engage with how the bill works honestly.

Well, they don't have to. Just ask "Which tax cuts are permanent?"

Yes: Estate tax removed, corporate rate 20%, higher income needed to pay maximum tax brackets.
No: The increase for children from $1000 to $1600, and the extra $300 for other dependants.

Now remember, the tax cut for the rich has to stay under $1.5 trillion, or it needs 60 Senators, which HAH no. So they intentionally had parts expire, so the long-term effect of the bill was lower, and lets them stay under the cap.

Granted, they've suggested they would just vote them back in later but then, they could do the same with corporate rates and the Estate Tax, but aren't doing that. They're making what they want -- tax cuts for the rich -- permanent, and the middle and lower classes will have to eat more deficit to keep theirs.

The bad news just continues to pile up. Reducing the tax paid on bringing money back to the USA had basically no effect the last time we tried it, for example.

[Kujako]

Current republican argument (as per NPR interviews this morning) is that yes it will increase our tax burden, BUT they're doing it to LOWER the deficit despite what those liars at the CBO and so called "economists" claim.

[Breccia]

Recently from the discussion, casualty losses.

The IRS defines a "casualty loss" with:

You may be able to deduct losses based on the damage done to your property during a disaster. A casualty is a sudden, unexpected or unusual event. This may include natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and earthquakes. It can also include losses from fires, accidents, thefts or vandalism.

Casualty losses are no longer deductible. Obviously, that won't affect the people of Texas, since that happened this year.

- - - Updated - - -

Well the Tax Policy Center just released a report saying at least twenty-eight percent of Americans will pay more taxes, in 2027, under the bill. And twelve percent would right away.

They also point out what everyone knows: the tax cut for the rich, is a tax cut for the rich. Full text here.

[Draco-Onis]

Current republican argument (as per NPR interviews this morning) is that yes it will increase our tax burden, BUT they're doing it to LOWER the deficit despite what those liars at the CBO and so called "economists" claim.

Trickle down magic will work via dynamic scoring, we triple swear it will work this time.

[Spectral]

Well, they don't have to. Just ask "Which tax cuts are permanent?"

Yes: Estate tax removed, corporate rate 20%, higher income needed to pay maximum tax brackets.
No: The increase for children from $1000 to $1600, and the extra $300 for other dependants.

Yeah, the Vox podcast had some amusing commentary on that. They've crafted a bill where the strongest provisions (in terms of automatic staying power) are the ones that are unpopular on the basis that the weakest provisions will be renewed because everyone likes those anyway. I guess it'd be clever politics if it wasn't really easy to notice... but it's really easy to notice.

[Breccia]

The latest amendment restores the $5,000 employer-provided child care we were talking about earlier.

Until 2022. Like the rest of the provisions that help the middle class and poor, it's due to expire to avoid reconciliation plus what @Spectral said.

[Xeones]

I really wonder if they can accomplish this.

But the bigger question I have is if they do accomplish it how long does their attempts to bring back hereditary nobility last until we get the estate tax back in place?

[Breccia]

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

The influential conservative nonprofit Club for Growth on Tuesday criticized the House GOP tax plan, calling out four aspects of the plan they say don’t do enough to boost the economy.

The group said provisions in the bill that would reduce benefits for the wealthiest taxpayers “fail the pro-growth test” and don’t follow Republican campaign promises.

“While the corporate tax cut will lead to some increase in our nation’s GDP, the rest of the provisions on individual taxpayers fails the pro-growth test,” Club for Growth President David McIntosh said.

“Republicans must correct at least four serious shortcomings of the House bill to follow through on campaign promises and to bring our nation closer to a tax reform proposal that is truly pro-growth."

Club for Growth opposes the provisions to create a fourth income tax bracket for the wealthiest payers, a marginal tax rate on earnings above $1.2 million for couples, a tax cut on some earnings for pass-through businesses and a six-year expiration of the estate tax.

The group called the higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans “class warfare the likes of which would make Democrats green with envy.” It also said the cut to the pass-through tax rate was too small to make a difference for most small businesses, and that there was no reason to wait to repeal the estate tax.

“All in all, this bill must be changed if Republicans intend to keep their promise of real pro-growth, job-creating tax cuts,” McIntosh said.

Club for Growth’s criticism comes as the House Ways and Means Committee begins the second day of the bill’s markup. The group didn't say if it would officially oppose the bill without the changes.