5 ms·

I can't overstate how sad it would be if the goal of this change was plainly to stick to to Democrat states. It there is truly do much disdain that didn't boat

I can't overstate how sad it would be if the goal of this change was plainly to stick to to Democrat states. It there is truly do much disdain that didn't boat well for the future as a united country.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> the goal of this change was plainly to stick to to Democrat states That's not the goal but a predictable side effect of a single party emerging with dominance from close to a decade of structural gridlock. Republicans want to give their base, both donor and electoral, a tax cut. The national debt scares many of their constituents. As a result, they have to at least look like they're trying to avoid blowing the deficit. So they send the bill to outside their base. This wasn't "let's screw our political opponents." It was "let's help our base and stick the bill to our opponents." Subtle, but different.
- eldavido 9y ago
  It also bears mentioning that some of the proposals in the current plan are surprisingly well-considered. Also, it's not like all of it even hews to traditional republican orthodoxy. A few things I've read: - Removing state exemptions. This concentrates more control at the federal level and is anti-states' rights which is arguably anti-Republican. - Mortgage interest deduction removal/lowering the cap. Economists left and right agree this deduction is a huge sop to the rich, who own homes (the poor rent). - Reducing corporate tax rates. The Economist makes the point constantly that the US's corporate taxes are some of the highest in the OECD and that shareholders, rather than corporations, should be taxed. These high rates also encourage crazy behavior like inversion transactions and tax games with repatriation, etc.
  - davidw 9y ago
    Here's The Economist on this tax bill: https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21731166-house-republicans-have-written-bad-bill-it-could-be-made-better-how-make-republican https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21731166-house-republ... tl;dr: it's bad, but includes a few good things, and could potentially be improved.
saas_co_de 9y ago
The entire tax bill seems to be sticking it to Democrat states, in particular New York and California, but it is really about urban vs. rural politics. Democrats have become too concentrated as a party in urban areas and so rural voters have gotten enough political power to attempt to address what they view as economic inequities in the current urban/rural income distribution. Republican have also flipped the script on Democrats and so now they are proposing to tax the "rich" (actually urban middle class) and redistribute that to the poorer rural middle class. It is funny because conservatives have been warning for decades that redistributionist games don't end well, while the Democrats have been advocating them, but now that the shoe is on the other foot it doesn't seem like such a good idea.
- walshemj 9y ago
  it aint the poorer rural middle class that's going to benefit here
  - saas_co_de 9y ago
    they will get a couple thousand dollars a year. the mega rich and corporations will get hundreds of billions. that's politics though.
- panic 9y ago
  This narrative isn't consistent with what the actual tax bill does, which is a massive redistribution of wealth to the very richest Americans. For example, what part of repealing the estate tax for inheritances above $5.5 million will help this urban middle class?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - vostok 9y ago
    > For example, what part of repealing the estate tax for inheritances above $5.5 million will help this urban middle class? The narrative is that the tax bill is meant to help the rich and the rural red state poor at the expense of the urban blue state middle class.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> the goal of this change was plainly to stick to to Democrat states That's not the goal but a predictable side effect of a single party emerging with dominance from close to a decade of structural gridlock. Republicans want to give their base, both donor and electoral, a tax cut. The national debt scares many of their constituents. As a result, they have to at least look like they're trying to avoid blowing the deficit. So they send the bill to outside their base. This wasn't "let's screw our political opponents." It was "let's help our base and stick the bill to our opponents." Subtle, but different.

eldavido 9y ago
It also bears mentioning that some of the proposals in the current plan are surprisingly well-considered. Also, it's not like all of it even hews to traditional republican orthodoxy. A few things I've read: - Removing state exemptions. This concentrates more control at the federal level and is anti-states' rights which is arguably anti-Republican. - Mortgage interest deduction removal/lowering the cap. Economists left and right agree this deduction is a huge sop to the rich, who own homes (the poor rent). - Reducing corporate tax rates. The Economist makes the point constantly that the US's corporate taxes are some of the highest in the OECD and that shareholders, rather than corporations, should be taxed. These high rates also encourage crazy behavior like inversion transactions and tax games with repatriation, etc.
- davidw 9y ago
  Here's The Economist on this tax bill: https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21731166-house-republicans-have-written-bad-bill-it-could-be-made-better-how-make-republican https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21731166-house-republ... tl;dr: it's bad, but includes a few good things, and could potentially be improved.

saas_co_de 9y ago

The entire tax bill seems to be sticking it to Democrat states, in particular New York and California, but it is really about urban vs. rural politics. Democrats have become too concentrated as a party in urban areas and so rural voters have gotten enough political power to attempt to address what they view as economic inequities in the current urban/rural income distribution. Republican have also flipped the script on Democrats and so now they are proposing to tax the "rich" (actually urban middle class) and redistribute that to the poorer rural middle class. It is funny because conservatives have been warning for decades that redistributionist games don't end well, while the Democrats have been advocating them, but now that the shoe is on the other foot it doesn't seem like such a good idea.

walshemj 9y ago
it aint the poorer rural middle class that's going to benefit here
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  they will get a couple thousand dollars a year. the mega rich and corporations will get hundreds of billions. that's politics though.
panic 9y ago
This narrative isn't consistent with what the actual tax bill does, which is a massive redistribution of wealth to the very richest Americans. For example, what part of repealing the estate tax for inheritances above $5.5 million will help this urban middle class?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- vostok 9y ago
  > For example, what part of repealing the estate tax for inheritances above $5.5 million will help this urban middle class? The narrative is that the tax bill is meant to help the rich and the rural red state poor at the expense of the urban blue state middle class.