5 ms·

I think this analysis is right, but it ignores the blue side of the bargain -- unless you mean the Dems care less about unionised workers than the Repubs. Are

I think this analysis is right, but it ignores the blue side of the bargain -- unless you mean the Dems care less about unionised workers than the Repubs. Are SV companies able to influence the Dems by some other means, or is it that the blue-team influences them.

Shivetya 9y ago
In this particular case they only cared about not giving Trump a win. This will move the economy forward which is something as a party the cannot afford. My problem is they always put party before their own voters. They did it during the election and they are doing it now. I know that many are trying to portray the cuts as mostly going to the rich but looking at percentages it isn't. Even more so they are clawing back deductions that only favored high income earners, like deducting state and city taxes. Deductions the middle and lower class never got to take advantage of, plus DOUBLING the standard deduction which favors those under 100k immensely
- awinder 9y ago
  They're clawing back deductions that helped high income earners because they also helped fund local schools & infrastructure that benefits everyone. They had no problem letting rich people give away 5M more tax-free in estate transfers, for instance.
- fzeroracer 9y ago
  Is this after ignoring the deliberate corruption in making the individual tax cuts temporary vs permanent tax cuts for businesses plus the individual mandate repeal resulting in skyrocketing premiums?
  - harryh 9y ago
    I don't think that's corruption, I think that's just politics. It will be easy to get agreement to extend the individual cuts before they expire. It would be much harder to get agreement to extend the corporate cuts. If you want to cut both then you basically have to do it this way.
    - junkcollector 9y ago
      There is also the fact that the renewal vote happens on an election cycle. If the republicans hold the house, the tax cuts will be renewed. If the democrats take control, they will be forced to expire the cuts since they are planning to campaign heavily on the tax bills as bad for the public. This means that if the GOP loses control, the following year taxes will go up on most voters and help reinforce the GOP narrative of the Democrats as the party of taxation.
    - notfromhere 9y ago
      The corporate cuts are permanent. Only the individual ones expire
      - harryh 9y ago
        Yes, I am aware. And my comment explained the political reasons behind that decision.
    - okaram 9y ago
      I think it is the Republican party showing its priorities :) Tax cuts for the reach are more important than anything else. Hopefully we get a repeal of the corporate cuts, with even an increase to compensate for the years it was cut.
      - harryh 9y ago
        Corporate taxes are bad. 1) Their inherent complexity leads to a lot of wasted work and other distortions away from an efficient allocation of resources. 2) Corporate taxes charge the same rate to rich shareholders as poor shareholders: not progressive. Cutting them is good.
  - mc32 9y ago
    Didn't Obama propose bringing Corp taxes down to 28% (vs 35 now and 22% after passage?). So it isn't only Reps who recognized our corp taxes were out if sync with other nations corp tax rates.
    - fzeroracer 9y ago
      Yes, BUT that was meant to be combined with the closing of multiple loopholes that would prevent companies from paying far less than what they're supposed to. In comparison the Republican bill leaves them open and even has a few of its own. That's why Obama had such a tough time actually getting something done. Well, that and another obvious factor.
      - coolso 9y ago
        > Well, that and another obvious factor. The fact that, all in all, he really wasn't all that great of a President and only got elected because W destroyed the Republican party (and McCain was a terrible candidate), and got re-elected because, well, that's what most incumbent Presidents do? It's probably a good thing that Obama didn't get much done, because look at the result of the one thing he did get done (Obamacare), which primarily got done thanks to dishonest marketing on his and the D's part (you get to keep your doctor, your rates won't go up).
        fzeroracer 9y ago
        I'm not here to argue about the whether or not Obama was a good president, but your second point is incorrect. The ACA was formulated in an almost entirely bipartisan way, taking influence from many Republican plans. It was a bandage on the bleeding wound of Healthcare and one that was desperately needed. I would say it was particularly effective, considering my family personally benefited from the removal of pre-existing condition denial. That said, it was obvious more needed to be done and gutting the ACA just means ripping open the wound once more and hoping we don't bleed out.
        prepend 9y ago
- markbnj 9y ago
  What about the additional $1.4T being added to the deficit to pay for them? Is that moving the economy forward? I'm all for a lower tax burden, but like politicians of both parties they're much happier handing out the benefits than paying for them.
  - perseusprime11 9y ago
    Not to stir up controversy, governments have to figure out a different way to make money than taxing people. It is about time somebody figured this out. In a world run by fiat currencies, what does deficit even mean? Just print more money using leverage. Who’s gonna check?
    - nemothekid 9y ago
      Printing money would be de facto tax-by-inflation.
      - richardknop 9y ago
        Not if that money never enters the circulation. Just use it to keep deficit down, it doesn't need to actually get all the way down to consumers.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      Are you proposing having honest accounting, and assuming that nobody will look? Or are you proposing having dishonest accounting, and assuming that nobody will be able to look deep enough to prove it? People actually do seriously read the federal budget statements...
    - specialist 9y ago
      You have the arrow backwards: Governments create demand for money by collecting taxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory That's why the economy (the measure of the velocity of money) grows when taxes are raised.
- Can_Not 9y ago
  > In this particular case they only cared about not giving Trump a win. No, that was the GOP's strategy against Obama over the last 8 years... I don't know how you mixed that up.
  - richardknop 9y ago
    That doesn't mean the other party isn't using the same tactic now that the shoe is on the other foot.
    - Can_Not 9y ago
      But they're not, so you're suggesting it or for no reason. In fact, the GOP is still trying to undo everything Obama did just because Obama touched it.

Shivetya 9y ago

In this particular case they only cared about not giving Trump a win. This will move the economy forward which is something as a party the cannot afford. My problem is they always put party before their own voters. They did it during the election and they are doing it now. I know that many are trying to portray the cuts as mostly going to the rich but looking at percentages it isn't. Even more so they are clawing back deductions that only favored high income earners, like deducting state and city taxes. Deductions the middle and lower class never got to take advantage of, plus DOUBLING the standard deduction which favors those under 100k immensely

awinder 9y ago
They're clawing back deductions that helped high income earners because they also helped fund local schools & infrastructure that benefits everyone. They had no problem letting rich people give away 5M more tax-free in estate transfers, for instance.
fzeroracer 9y ago
Is this after ignoring the deliberate corruption in making the individual tax cuts temporary vs permanent tax cuts for businesses plus the individual mandate repeal resulting in skyrocketing premiums?
- harryh 9y ago
  I don't think that's corruption, I think that's just politics. It will be easy to get agreement to extend the individual cuts before they expire. It would be much harder to get agreement to extend the corporate cuts. If you want to cut both then you basically have to do it this way.
  - junkcollector 9y ago
    There is also the fact that the renewal vote happens on an election cycle. If the republicans hold the house, the tax cuts will be renewed. If the democrats take control, they will be forced to expire the cuts since they are planning to campaign heavily on the tax bills as bad for the public. This means that if the GOP loses control, the following year taxes will go up on most voters and help reinforce the GOP narrative of the Democrats as the party of taxation.
  - notfromhere 9y ago
    The corporate cuts are permanent. Only the individual ones expire
    - harryh 9y ago
      Yes, I am aware. And my comment explained the political reasons behind that decision.
  - okaram 9y ago
    I think it is the Republican party showing its priorities :) Tax cuts for the reach are more important than anything else. Hopefully we get a repeal of the corporate cuts, with even an increase to compensate for the years it was cut.
    - harryh 9y ago
      Corporate taxes are bad. 1) Their inherent complexity leads to a lot of wasted work and other distortions away from an efficient allocation of resources. 2) Corporate taxes charge the same rate to rich shareholders as poor shareholders: not progressive. Cutting them is good.
- mc32 9y ago
  Didn't Obama propose bringing Corp taxes down to 28% (vs 35 now and 22% after passage?). So it isn't only Reps who recognized our corp taxes were out if sync with other nations corp tax rates.
  - fzeroracer 9y ago
    Yes, BUT that was meant to be combined with the closing of multiple loopholes that would prevent companies from paying far less than what they're supposed to. In comparison the Republican bill leaves them open and even has a few of its own. That's why Obama had such a tough time actually getting something done. Well, that and another obvious factor.
    - coolso 9y ago
      > Well, that and another obvious factor. The fact that, all in all, he really wasn't all that great of a President and only got elected because W destroyed the Republican party (and McCain was a terrible candidate), and got re-elected because, well, that's what most incumbent Presidents do? It's probably a good thing that Obama didn't get much done, because look at the result of the one thing he did get done (Obamacare), which primarily got done thanks to dishonest marketing on his and the D's part (you get to keep your doctor, your rates won't go up).
      - fzeroracer 9y ago
        I'm not here to argue about the whether or not Obama was a good president, but your second point is incorrect. The ACA was formulated in an almost entirely bipartisan way, taking influence from many Republican plans. It was a bandage on the bleeding wound of Healthcare and one that was desperately needed. I would say it was particularly effective, considering my family personally benefited from the removal of pre-existing condition denial. That said, it was obvious more needed to be done and gutting the ACA just means ripping open the wound once more and hoping we don't bleed out.
        prepend 9y ago
markbnj 9y ago
What about the additional $1.4T being added to the deficit to pay for them? Is that moving the economy forward? I'm all for a lower tax burden, but like politicians of both parties they're much happier handing out the benefits than paying for them.
- perseusprime11 9y ago
  Not to stir up controversy, governments have to figure out a different way to make money than taxing people. It is about time somebody figured this out. In a world run by fiat currencies, what does deficit even mean? Just print more money using leverage. Who’s gonna check?
  - nemothekid 9y ago
    Printing money would be de facto tax-by-inflation.
    - richardknop 9y ago
      Not if that money never enters the circulation. Just use it to keep deficit down, it doesn't need to actually get all the way down to consumers.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    Are you proposing having honest accounting, and assuming that nobody will look? Or are you proposing having dishonest accounting, and assuming that nobody will be able to look deep enough to prove it? People actually do seriously read the federal budget statements...
  - specialist 9y ago
    You have the arrow backwards: Governments create demand for money by collecting taxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory That's why the economy (the measure of the velocity of money) grows when taxes are raised.
Can_Not 9y ago
> In this particular case they only cared about not giving Trump a win. No, that was the GOP's strategy against Obama over the last 8 years... I don't know how you mixed that up.
- richardknop 9y ago
  That doesn't mean the other party isn't using the same tactic now that the shoe is on the other foot.
  - Can_Not 9y ago
    But they're not, so you're suggesting it or for no reason. In fact, the GOP is still trying to undo everything Obama did just because Obama touched it.