Support NeoGAF

[Gurnlei]

It's all good now. Whether 83% of the cuts going to the top 1% can be argued if it's good or not but in general I agree less taxes are good.

I'll wait until next year when the talks of 'entitlement reform' get more detailed to judge if it's better for the long term.

 

[mercenar1e]

It's all good now. Whether 83% of the cuts going to the top 1% can be argued if it's good or not but in general I agree less taxes are good.

I'll wait until next year when the talks of 'entitlement reform' get more detailed to judge if it's better for the long term.

entitlement reform is a reduction in Social Security/Disability payments, cutting Medicaid spending and any other programs that are geared towards the average american.

 

[Kung Foo Kid]

Nancy Pelosi said this was the worst bill in the history of the United States. That it's Armageddon.

Lol.

Apparently Armageddon means:

80% of Americans keeping more of their money
Higher wages announced by several major corporations
Bonuses announced by several major corporations
In nearly every possible family example, they kept more of their money. For instance a single father of 2 kids making 60k had his tax burden reduced by like 30%.

Armageddon folks. This is what Armageddon looks like.

Americans have a strange obsession with "money in your pocket".

Having a extra $1000 in your pocket a year seems like a strange exchange for giving tax breaks that provide less money to fund your government that could then give you proper services such as actual universal health care, maternity/paternity leave, unemployment benefits, more affordable education, etc.

From the outside looking in Americans seem very focused on ones self rather than the health of the nation as a whole.

 

[AntoneM]

The last two times Republicans cut taxes, it resulted in growth for the economy.

If Democrats are so certain it won't happen this time, why not wait to see if they will be proven right? Then we can all move on from this silly idea that tax cuts actually help the economy.

So what is the end of that policy?

PS: Democrats (Clinton) raised taxes and the economy expanded to the point that there was a budget surplus

 

[gatti-man]

​

It would depend on future changes to the law, automatic stabilizers, Federal Reserve action, market forces, etc.

At the moment, the deficit is estimated to be $666 billion for FY 2017 so it would probably be in the $1T ballpark if Democrats and Republicans get the additional stuff they want to get the US economy back on the right track.

In any event, it's a shame the GOP dropped the ball on tax reform because they lacked ambition.

The economy was on a fine track during obama. Tax cuts to corporations have never stimulated the economy in our history.

 

[gatti-man]

Americans have a strange obsession with "money in your pocket".

Having a extra $1000 in your pocket a year seems like a strange exchange for giving tax breaks that provide less money to fund your government that could then give you proper services such as actual universal health care, maternity/paternity leave, unemployment benefits, more affordable education, etc.

From the outside looking in Americans seem very focused on ones self rather than the health of the nation as a whole.

Trumps America. We weren’t like this 4 years ago 8 years ago or even 12 years ago.

 

[PataHikari]

It's all good now. Whether 83% of the cuts going to the top 1% can be argued if it's good or not but in general I agree less taxes are good.

This is not actually true. More taxes on the rich would be a good thing right now as those tax dollars could be used to invest in the parts of the country that actually makes the economy work and thus improve everybody's lives while, funnily enough, not hurting the rich at all.

 

[Gurnlei]

This is not actually true. More taxes on the rich would be a good thing right now as those tax dollars could be used to invest in the parts of the country that actually makes the economy work and thus improve everybody's lives while, funnily enough, not hurting the rich at all.

The second part of my post agrees with this. The sweet spot is lowering taxes enough to lessen the burden on lower income people and still have enough money to fund what we need. If they go after programs that shouldn't be cut only to lighten the load on the 1% they've made a mistake.

 

[Sàmban]

Nancy Pelosi said this was the worst bill in the history of the United States. That it's Armageddon.

Lol.

Apparently Armageddon means:

80% of Americans keeping more of their money
Higher wages announced by several major corporations
Bonuses announced by several major corporations
In nearly every possible family example, they kept more of their money. For instance a single father of 2 kids making 60k had his tax burden reduced by like 30%.

Armageddon folks. This is what Armageddon looks like.

Come on man. I know you want to "own dem libruls" but don't you think it seems absurd to claim that 80% of Americans will be keeping more of their money when that amounts to about $1K to $2k for most while the costs of everything else being cut (education, healthcare, etc) actually means they are losing money? For example you keep an extra $2K and you get a $1K bonus or whatnot, but your insurance/healthcare costs go up because of too many people using ERs since they can't afford insurance (just one simple example of many). I hope you can see that, even if you are only looking out for yourself, it seems pretty shortsighted to think like that because everyone gets fucked in the end (except for corporations). The bonuses you are talking about are nothing but a PR move that could have been done at anytime considering record corporation profits vs stagnant wages. They are not a direct result of these cuts. I mean, this is pretty obvious stuff.

 

[MBison]

Come on man. I know you want to "own dem libruls" but don't you think it seems absurd to claim that 80% of Americans will be keeping more of their money when that amounts to about $1K to $2k for most while the costs of everything else being cut (education, healthcare, etc) actually means they are losing money? For example you keep an extra $2K and you get a $1K bonus or whatnot, but your insurance/healthcare costs go up because of too many people using ERs since they can't afford insurance (just one simple example of many). I hope you can see that, even if you are only looking out for yourself, it seems pretty shortsighted to think like that because everyone gets fucked in the end (except for corporations). The bonuses you are talking about are nothing but a PR move that could have been done at anytime considering record corporation profits vs stagnant wages. They are not a direct result of these cuts. I mean, this is pretty obvious stuff.

You can't just recite liberal talking points.

Did the cost of eduction or healthcare decrease from 2008-2016 when we were paying more taxes?

No?

Well by your logic they should have.

It's a PR disaster for democrats. It's not just 8 of 10 getting a tax cut. With all these companies announcing pay increases and bonuses and billions being reinvested in USA business and not overseas, and not a single democrat voted for it. It probably is Armageddon just for different reasons.

 

[Breads]

Now sure how sucking shareholder cock is supposed to stimulate the economy. You didn't think this through. There is no evidence to support this.

 

[ptuck874]

in all seriousness, the reason why they have the individual rates expire, is they need to have a way for congress to cut down on spending, no offense to any military people, but the pentagon budget is way over done, and a lot of other things they can cut back on (and I am not talking about social security or anything that we are taxed on extra)...

 

[Gurnlei]

You can't just recite liberal talking points.

Did the cost of eduction or healthcare decrease from 2008-2016 when we were paying more taxes?

No?

I don't think healthcare coverage costs will ever lower. Premium cost increases did slow (sometimes by a drastic amount) starting in 2006 though - partly because of the tax cuts enacted by Bush and the sluggish economy. I guess that's good?

 

[NervousXtian]

You can't just recite liberal talking points.

Did the cost of eduction or healthcare decrease from 2008-2016 when we were paying more taxes?

No?

Well by your logic they should have.

It's a PR disaster for democrats. It's not just 8 of 10 getting a tax cut. With all these companies announcing pay increases and bonuses and billions being reinvested in USA business and not overseas, and not a single democrat voted for it. It probably is Armageddon just for different reasons.

Those corp tax cuts will mostly go straight to bonuses for the top and shareholders to help the stock price.

The problem is the stock market. Too much power and money for those involved. It's not about a successful business paying it's employees, it's about an successful stock price to fatten the pockets of those with money already.

That shit never trickles down to the work force.

If it did, it wouldn't have worked with Reagan or Bush. It didn't. American wages for the middle-class have been stagnant for years while the upper class and above are reaping the windfall of the economy.

The economy is shit for workers right now. Low unemployment and gains on my 401k don't help me and the people I know pay their bills when wages have been going up less than inflation.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

It is more than that for me. Around $1500. Any amount the government doesn't take from the money I worked for is a good thing.

Hey look AT&T is giving 200,000 employees a $1,000 bonus because of the tax cut. I am sure you guys can find something negative about that too.

At&t is also simultaneously laying off thousands of workers as part of a company-wide restructuring (source: me).

The one time $1000 bonus is trivial and lip service to temper the backlash that will happen when more money gets syphoned to executive managent and shareholders.

The employees and contractors that haven't gotten laid off this round have been told to be happy they got to keep their jobs, many of which have been demoted and now have to function doing the work of 2 or 3 previous roles without an increase in salary to compensate.

I already know. I'm on the inside. So, there's no use in arguing with me.

If America was serious about corporate tax reform to benefit domestic small and medium size companies that innovate and employ much of the workforce, they'd be using a combination of a simple progressive corporate tax structure and deductions only for investing domestically within America (that way giant companies would have a choice of paying high taxes or having a reduced tax burden since they hired and invested locally).

The same sort of setup should be mirrored on the federal personal income tax side of the equation, along with the capital gains and estate taxes being increased in a simple progressive manner.

Pushing everyone towards the middle keeps everyone competitive by not allowing them to rest on their laurels if they are rich, but also equipping them as an educated, skilled, and healthy productive contributor to society if they are poor.

 

[Ke0]

Trumps America. We weren’t like this 4 years ago 8 years ago or even 12 years ago.

Isn't this like the third time you've guys (as in your country in general) have tried this tax approach?

Then if you count your individual provinces Kansas did it and it didn't work there either.

 

[TTOOLL]

Nobody cares about the deficit now that Republicans are in charge.

How was the deficit during Obama? Serious question.

 

[transformer]

And in a few years, individual tax breaks expire and the middle class has it's taxes raised. Sweet tax bill, Trump.

True. Because not a single democrat would support this bill. They couldn't stand to give a single dollar back to a tax payer. This is the reason for the expiration of the tax cuts. I'm all for criticism, but give it where it's due. This aspect was 100% due to the Democrats. Not a single democrat member of Congress would allow a reduction in taxes to Americans forcing it to a majority vote which restricted making the tax cuts permanent.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

This is silly. Have you just started following politics? One side always complains about the other. MAGA is an empty cliche, and this tax cut does nothing but enlarge the wealth gap; which is revolution-size at this point.

And by the looks of your subsequent post, you've discovered what "effective tax rate" means. Your solution of abolishing the corporate tax is ludicrous. It's like building an infrastructure with public money then handing it over to private companies to rape the consumer with fees. You're delusional if you think most corps will not sacrifice fairness and long-term stability for short-term gain.

MAGA is not an empty cliche and people from all walks of life are trying to do what they can to make it great again in their own way. Irrespective of whether you're liberal or conservative. Establishment or anti-establishment. America has fundamental problems and saying it's the envy of the world will not make them go away.

In addition, abolishing the corporate tax is not ludicrous at all. Here's why it's a bad tax:

The federal tax on corporate profits is the tax which is most important in its effect on business operations. There are other taxes which are of great concern to special classes of business. There are many problems of state and local taxation of business which become extremely urgent, particularly when a corporation has no profits at all.

However, we shall confine our discussion to the federal corporation income tax, since it is in this way that business is principally taxed. We shall also confine our considerations to the problems of ordinary peacetime taxation since, during wartime, many tax measures, such as the excess-profits tax, have a special justification.

Taxes on corporation profits have three principal consequences --- all of them bad.

Briefly, the three bad effects of the corporation income tax are:

1. The money which is taken from the corporation in taxes must come in one of three ways. It must come from the people, in the higher prices they pay for the things they buy; from the corporation's own employees in wages that are lower than they otherwise would be; or from the corporation's stockholders, in lower rate of return on their investment. No matter from which sources it comes, or in what proportion, this tax is harmful to production, to purchasing power, and to investment.

2. The tax on corporation profits is a distorting factor in managerial judgment, a factor which is prejudicial to clear engineering and economic analysis of what will be best for the production and distribution of things for use. And, the larger the tax, the greater the distortion.

3. The corporation income tax is the cause of double taxation. The individual taxpayer is taxed once when his profit is earned by the corporation, and once again when he receives the profit as a dividend. This double taxation makes it more difficult to get people to invest their savings in business than if the profits of business were only taxed once. Furthermore, stockholders with small incomes bear as heavy a burden under the corporation income tax as do stockholders with large incomes.

http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/RUMLTAXES.html

 

[David___]

Isn't this like the third time you've guys (as in your country in general) have tried this tax approach?

GOP president does tax reform

Dem president gets in while the previous admin's tax policy fucks over everyone and wastes 4-8 years fixing up their shit

GOP president gets elected in

repeat forever

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad

 

[mercenar1e]

True. Because not a single democrat would support this bill. They couldn't stand to give a single dollar back to a tax payer. This is the reason for the expiration of the tax cuts. I'm all for criticism, but give it where it's due. This aspect was 100% due to the Democrats. Not a single democrat member of Congress would allow a reduction in taxes to Americans forcing it to a majority vote which restricted making the tax cuts permanent.

I don't understand how the Democrats forced the Republicans (who wrote the bill) to exclude making the tax cuts on the middle class permanent. No Democrat in the Senate or Congress voted for the bill and the Republicans got it through.

If they wanted to include it in the bill they would have done so and passed it easily. But lets face it.. they made it temporary to shift the burden on the middle class. next year they're going to cut social programs to afford it.

 

[transformer]

I don't understand how the Democrats forced the Republicans (who wrote the bill) to exclude making the tax cuts on the middle class permanent. No Democrat in the Senate or Congress voted for the bill and the Republicans got it through.

Look up the process of reconciliation in Congress. That had to be used in order to pass this without any support from Democrats. One stipulation is the bill has to be shown to be budget neutral by the CBO. This is why the cuts have to expire, to meet this requirement.

If they wanted to include it in the bill they would have done so and passed it easily. But lets face it.. they made it temporary to shift the burden on the middle class. next year they're going to cut social programs to afford it.

They did want to include it in the bill and couldn't because they didn't have the votes. 51 votes would not have passed the bill with this in there. It was made temporary because the Democrats forced it to be put through the reconciliation process. Not a single one could stand a tax cut. Now I can assure you there will be certain members of Congress who try and make this permanent moving forward, and other members who will fight tooth and nail to take more of my money out of my pocket. It will probably follow the same party lines.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Democrats didn't force anything, the bill needed to follow to Byrd rule to get enough votes from its own party, thus they are temporary. The Democrats had no impact other than trying to lobby against little details like axing the student loan interests deduction.

What congress will try to do is extend the tax cuts, and then we'll have to contend with the chained CPI rule.

 

[transformer]

Democrats didn't force anything, the bill needed to follow to Byrd rule to get enough votes from its own party, thus they are temporary. The Democrats had no impact other than trying to lobby against little details like axing the student loan interests deduction.

If the democrats wanted to support a tax cut bill they could have done it and voted to make it permanent. They did not support this bill at all. Not a single vote. That did, by definition, force the Byrd rule to apply. It was that or no tax cuts (which is what the democrats were pushing for).

 

[BlackSalad]

And small businesses get ate up by taxes.

This is what I've heard too. I work at a relatively small company (~60ish employees) and from what I understand from our controller is that this is really no benefit with a potential to be worse for us.

I'm also under the impression that the corporate tax cuts won't really do anything because we still don't compete with other countries, where corporations can get close to 0% tax

I'm no expert tho and probably misinformed on a lot.

 

[Kimawolf]

This is what I've heard too. I work at a relatively small company (~60ish employees) and from what I understand from our controller is that this is really no benefit with a potential to be worse for us.

I'm also under the impression that the corporate tax cuts won't really do anything because we still don't compete with other countries, where corporations can get close to 0% tax

I'm no expert tho and probably misinformed on a lot.

The effective tax rate in the U.S. is lower than 21 percent due to tax loopholes. And since thdy basically cut a LOT of things out there will be instances when a small business taxes will be more than ATT. There will also be instances where the ceo effective tax rate is less than his secretary.


And if you want to see republican tax cuts in person. Look at Kansas and how that state went from a huge surplus in the billions to being in debt by billions, not able to pay for schools etc.

 

[Vicetrailia]

If the democrats wanted to support a tax cut bill they could have done it and voted to make it permanent. They did not support this bill at all. Not a single vote. That did, by definition, force the Byrd rule to apply. It was that or no tax cuts (which is what the democrats were pushing for).

The Democrats had no input, negotiations, or etc, on the creation of this tax bill. The Republicans intentionally created it themselves without bypartisanship, or input from Democrats.

Any strategy devised to get the votes was their purposeful intention from the beginning. Republicans created this bill with the understanding that Democrats would have no role in it.

Just like with healthcare and democrats courting the blue dogs as the only barrier, republicans courted the budget hawks by satisfying the Byrd rule to get the votes.

This situation is squarely and only about Republicans. The Democrats do not have a role or purpose in this bill. They are not a barrier. Now If they wanted democrat votes, they would have negotiated with them.

 

[B4s5C]

Praising crony capitalism.

L
O
L

 

[Vicetrailia]

The funniest thing about this tax bill are the PR statements.

AT&T says it's doing 1k bonuses, but it is also laying off 1400 in staff. They already have the money, they're doing a mass layoff in the same year that they raised prices, and none of the employees getting the Christmas bonus are getting rewarded as a valuation of skill, but as a conveniently timed PR bribe meant to appease onlookers. It's called getting manipulated.

Watch anyone who said that they are raising wages not actually do it.