3 ms·
This is a prominent criticism, but it strikes me as fundamentally weird to say, yeah, you're right that these are tax cuts, but the cuts expire in 10 years. Thi
by dionidium 9y ago
This is a prominent criticism, but it strikes me as fundamentally weird to say, yeah, you're right that these are tax cuts, but the cuts expire in 10 years. This is government. Who knows what the world will look like in 10 years? Would, say, 20 years be better? Sure, I guess. But 10 years is a pretty long time. It's pretty difficult to plan most personal finances out that far, anyway. Who knows what your own life will be like in 10 years?
Isn't the complaint that the cuts don't last longer tacit approval of the cuts?
- Scalestein 9y agoI think the issue is that one set of tax cuts is set to expire while another is not. And it looks a lot like using these expiring cuts to distract average taxpayers from the non-expiring tax cuts for the wealthier class.
- a_humean 9y agoAs another commentator said, its not really tacit approval of the cuts. The point I and others are making is that these cuts are clearly designed to be a political smokescreen for midterm elections. These cuts are deficit financed giveaways that in most cases will disappear, and in many cases income tax payers will see tax increases on income in later years to finance the permanent cuts elsewhere. The actual goal of the bill are the changes the congress choose to be permanent, which are the cuts on corporate rates, pass-through rates, and estate tax, which benefit a very small group of tax payers.
- dionidium 9y agoI think I’d want to argue that in tax policy, anything nominally permanent isn’t and anything set to expire in 10 years likely won’t. I’d be worried if this were the last ever tax bill, but since it isn’t, and since 10 years is a pretty long time, I don’t think it’s so bad (even if I agree with you about some portions (e.g. the elimination of the estate tax)).