Republican Tax Plan Revealed

[Kiri]

Most of the time what big corporations use excess wealth for is share buybacks (i.e. they invest in buying back more of their own company that they once sold on the open market) and buying pieces of other big corporations. The money isn't invested back into the economy in any way that meaningfully benefits the middle and lower classes. They increase their own share of wealth.

Wealth begets wealth. I'm sure you're fully aware of all of this though.

The right wing argument that giving them money "makes them invest it back" still means that they own whatever they invest in. The few times they "invest" in something that marginally benefits the middle class, they still own it, further expanding their own wealth.

Sadly, the right does not believe anyone when they are told that just throwing money at wealthy people does not help the middle class as much as social aid programs. But what can you do, they won't listen.

To be honest, I am fairly sure that a number of them do understand it. But, as always, it pays to know that some of those 'investments' made are contributions to those very same Republicans. Thanks to the polarization of American politics, those politicians are no longer as accountable to their constituents as they were a few decades ago, but they are accountable to their donors.

[Breccia]

Forbes weighs in. Again.

GOP Tax Bill Is The End Of All Economic Sanity In Washington

No doubt many of you read the above headline and immediately started to tweet that the GOP tax bill can't be the end of economic sanity in Washington because there never was any to begin with.

I have two responses.

First...please do tweet that, and link to this post when you do.

Second...you're wrong. If it's enacted, the GOP tax cut now working its way through Congress will be the start of a decades-long economic policy disaster unlike any other that has occurred in American history.

There's no economic justification whatsoever for a tax cut at this time. U.S. GDP is growing, unemployment is close to 4 percent (below what is commonly considered "full employment"), corporate profits are at record levels and stock markets are soaring. It makes no sense to add any federal government-induced stimulus to all this private sector-caused economic activity, let alone a tax cut as big as this one.

"Remember, this is the Tax Cuts And Jobs Act", Paul Ryan says, "despite there being nothing in the bill in any way that helps jobs at all. Except for the parts where certain employer contributions, like child care and education, being taxed now, and also not deductible, the only 'jobs' part of the bill are the hopes that people who like being rich, when made more rich, will create jobs out of the fevered dreams of unicorn farts."

This is actually the ideal time for Washington to be doing the opposite. But by damning the economic torpedoes and moving full-speed ahead, House and Senate Republicans and the Trump White House are setting up the U.S. for the modern-day analog of the inflation-producing guns-and-butter economic policy of the Vietnam era. The GOP tax bill will increase the federal deficit by $2 trillion or more over the next decade (the official estimates of $1.5 trillion hide the real amount with a witches brew of gimmicks and outright lies) that, unless all the rules have changed, is virtually certain to result in inflation and much higher interest rates than would otherwise occur.

The GOP's insanity is compounded by its moving ahead without having any idea of what this policy will actually do to the economy. The debates in the Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees and on the House floor all took place before the Congressional Budget Office's analysis and, if it really exists, the constantly-promised-but-never-seen report from the Treasury on the economics of this tax bill.

Meanwhile, Congress has ignored other estimates like this one from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School showing that the tax bill won't do what the GOP is promising.

In other words, the GOP tax bill may be enacted without anyone who votes for it having any understanding of the damage it could do to the economy. They have wishes, hopes and prayers but in reality nothing beyond the economic equivalent of pagan superstition.

[satimy]

Isn’t odd how the republicans bitched about the deficit for years and all of sudden it doesn’t matter again. Meanwhile in lala land Democrats suddenly care about the deficit. It’s all a fucking show, the corporate tax rates are too high but without a simplification of the tax code, rates are just patter. Most of the S&P 500 don’t pay taxes

[Kujako]

Most of the S&P 500 don’t pay taxes

Their effective tax rate on average has been ~24%...

[Breccia]

Isn’t odd how the republicans bitched about the deficit for years and all of sudden it doesn’t matter again.

To be fair, a small number of them are bitching about it now, too. Definitely not the majority tho.

[wheresmywoft]

If you're talking about flat numbers, there's more to offer the rich in tax breaks than there is in the middle class. There quickly comes a point where there is no more tax relief to offer the middle class (since their tax burden is already so small, around 9%). Particularly if you're talking about net taxes, offset by government programs.




That's just not true. Apple keeping more of their money means more development is the newest iPhone, which consumers want to buy, or more research into the next iPad, which consumers want to buy, etc. etc. They may also increase hiring. And if Apple keeps their money in a bank, that bank then loans out that money to small businesses, entrepreneurs, and families looking to consolidate debt. These are economic driving factors.

More to offer has nothing to do with the net benefits to society.

And on your second point. If that additional development won't draw more sales. It won't be done. If it did draw more sales, it would be done with or without this cut. However, money in the hands of low and middle class consumers, directly affect whether or not they are able to purchase this product at all.

[Zan15]

Their effective tax rate on average has been ~24%...

That is taking every companies tax rate and dividing by the total number of companies

if you were to actually look at the total numbers the effective tax rate is in the teens.

also effective tax rate does not take into account off shore tax havens since they park revenue overseas, i.e apple claiming 100 billion in revenue in Ireland when they sell a couple hundred million dollars worth of products there a year

[Kujako]

That is taking every companies tax rate and dividing by the total number of companies

No that is only the S&P 500.

[Breccia]

Okay, the timeline just got "Uranium One chart" levels of complicated.

Alexander, as in "the Republican co-author of the Alexandar-Murray bill to stabilize the ACA market", just agreed with Cornyn that his bill could be attached to the government funding bill.

But, that happens at the end of the year.

And both Collins and Murkowski have both suggested they want Alexander-Murray passed first, since the Senate GOP tax cut for the rich has an ACA individual mandate repeal in it. Incidentally, Alexander-Murray won't stop premiums from spiking when the ACA mandate is removed, it'll just dull the point.

And, Democrats have vowed to block Alexander-Murray if the individual mandate is removed.

So what does that suggest?

1) The Senate GOP tax cut for the rich could have the ACA mandate left in place, but, doing so would hike the cost by $400 billion or so, putting them over budget. They'd have to remove some of the tax cuts for the rich.

2) Or, they could try to pass it as is, and hope Collins and Murkowski are lying/bluffing. If they're not, "the Women" plus Ron Johnson put the GOP at 49 votes and a failure.

3) Or, they could put the tax cut for the rich off until after the government funding package, delaying it for a year, but guaranteeing a pass with Collins and Murkowski on board.

4) Or, they could convince Collins and Murkowski to vote "yes" now with a promise to pass Alexander-Murray later, ram the tax bill through with the ACA repeal on it, then have the Democrats follow through with their plan, killing the entire government funding package and watching the government shut down on the GOP's watch.

Now what I don't know is, can the Senate just give up and vote on the House plan, and get 50 votes? They're significantly different, and I kinda thought that was for a reason.

[satimy]

Their effective tax rate on average has been ~24%...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/0...ww.google.com/

Apologies 40% of the Fortune 500 has at least 1 year of no taxes since 07. 18 companies effectively paid nothing

[Rasulis]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/0...ww.google.com/

Apologies 40% of the Fortune 500 has at least 1 year of no taxes since 07. 18 companies effectively paid nothing

All you have to do is look at their annual public financial statement. You'll quickly come to the realization that not one of them pay even close to 10% tax.

[Breccia]

A new TPC release says the House GOP bill is over budget by $170 billion.

[Masark]

Forbes weighs in. Again.

Forbes.com/sites is Forbes-hosted blogs, not anything from Forbes itself.

[Edge-]

Forbes.com/sites is Forbes-hosted blogs, not anything from Forbes itself.

It's for contributors who aren't Forbes staffers, correct. However note the "editor's pick" tag at the top - while not necessarily a firm endorsement of the content, it is being elevated by the editorial staff beyond that of a regular contributor article.

[Zan15]

No that is only the S&P 500.

that is the average of every s&p 500 company not the aggregate tax rate of said companies.


like apple might have a rate of 20% vs the smallest sp 500 company 80%. the average would be 50%, when in fact that actual aggregate tax rate would be about 23%

[Nellise]

Isn’t odd how the republicans bitched about the deficit for years and all of sudden it doesn’t matter again.

It's because Paul Ryan is using it as a way to get what he really wants: to reduce entitlement spending. He can't straight up cut Social Security and Medicare right now, but once the deficit begins to soar from this bill they'll HAVE to cut SS and Medicare (it's actually part of a different law that automatically forces it: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...g-cuts-2017-11)

[tankbug]

I was wrong regarding the need for citizens to be armed so hey can fight against the government. Please get your guns and force those tyrants to stop sucking the blood of the american people.

[Rasulis]

What kind of BS is this?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...cid=spartanntp

First-in, first-out recognizes that many investors buy shares of a company in batches over time. For example, an investor might have originally purchased a portion of a company's stock at $10 each and later purchased another portion at $20 a share. If the current share price is $15, the earlier lot at $10 a share would represent a $5 per-share gain while the second group at $20 represents a $5 per-share loss.

Following current tax law, the investor could elect to sell the shares purchased at $20 to offset other gains, mitigating the tax burden. Under the proposed legislation, the investor would have no choice but to sell the $10 shares, realizing a $5 per-share taxable gain.

The BS part is that the big financial firms are exempt from this requirement.

https://pub.cnbc.com/2017/11/20/sena...&doc=104853584

[Mafic]

It's because Paul Ryan is using it as a way to get what he really wants: to reduce entitlement spending. He can't straight up cut Social Security and Medicare right now, but once the deficit begins to soar from this bill they'll HAVE to cut SS and Medicare (it's actually part of a different law that automatically forces it: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...g-cuts-2017-11)

They might raid SS again but yes Medicare cuts is likely with this "tax plan".

- - - Updated - - -

What kind of BS is this?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...cid=spartanntp



The BS part is that the big financial firms are exempt from this requirement.

https://pub.cnbc.com/2017/11/20/sena...&doc=104853584

They want to squeeze out the small fish out of the pond. They only want the big fish to play with their flash trading. Quite pathetic really and very anti-capitalistic.

[Breccia]

They might raid SS again but yes Medicare cuts is likely with this "tax plan".

You mean, besides the already existing half a trillion?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwas...llop-retirees/