8 ms·

This has been driving me nuts, I'm glad someone is writing about it. I don't think this is happening to show how much the tax cuts are giving back to people, I

This has been driving me nuts, I'm glad someone is writing about it. I don't think this is happening to show how much the tax cuts are giving back to people, I can't help but think that the reason only high earners are shown as examples is to paint this legislation as only benefiting high earners. If this is the case it has been broadly successful. Apparently half the country is buying into a narrative that their tax bills are going to go up, and I'm not sure where that idea is coming from. ( https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_US_121817/ https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthP... ) If the low income earners were included two things would be clear. 1) Many low income earners don't pay federal income taxes at all, many actually get paid by the IRS instead 2) Low income earners actually still benefit by getting either lower taxes or higher credits. The only example I saw of a regular person was in the Bloomberg article that was mentioned. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-20/how-the-tax-bill-will-affect-eight-american-families https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-20/how-the-t... The "renter in Milwaukee" went from paying $515 to actually being credited $400. At this point, there is no way of having a reduction in tax bills that doesn't overwhelming favor the top 50% of earners, because they pay almost all the federal income taxes. In 2015 the top 50% of those that filed tax returns paid over 97% of income taxes (the last table cell at the bottom all the way on the right https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15in03etr.xls https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/15in03etr.xls ) EDIT: Based on experience on this board I knew this post would be downvoted, but I'm not exactly sure why. Please help make me a better contributor by telling me what I did wrong as you downvote, thanks!

eropple 9y ago
> At this point, there is no way of having a reduction in tax bills that doesn't overwhelming favor the top 50% of earners This is completely true. The reason the top half pay all the taxes is the top half have all the goddamned money. And that, of course, makes sense: the top half have the only realistic chance at accumulating enough labor-derived money to buy into capital and they've been doing exactly that for the last fifty years. Capital is not linear per-hour. Capital is a multiplier. That's why they have all the money. That they have all the money is the core and the source of the mess we're dealing with right now. Which means there is another question to be asked: should taxes be lowered? As someone very firmly in that top half, I am benefited by having people in the lower half of the income distribution not starving and dying in the streets, not dying of easily preventable injuries and illnesses, and not being so crushed by debt that revolution looks appealing. So are you. It's not about you, and it's not about me, but it's about us. We need to do better by us, so we can all keep this thing ticking along. And I gotta say, it's important not to miss that even that Bloomberg article elides a really, really important question: how much of that net $915 from that hypothetical renter now goes to (poorly) covering for the cuts in other services that will be necessitated to avoid budgetary disaster? It's a hard question, because nobody really knows, but it's a question whose answer will impact the people at the bottom of the income distribution the most, by far.
- phyller 9y ago
  > how much of that net $915 from that hypothetical renter now goes to (poorly) covering for the cuts in other services that will be necessitated to avoid budgetary disaster? It's a hard question, because nobody really knows, but it's a question whose answer will impact the people at the bottom of the income distribution the most, by far. Yes, I think that is the main point, and what we should be talking about. I feel like as a country we have lost the ability to have a discussion at that level of depth. So instead we dumb down our arguments to the point where we mislead people just so they will accept our point of view.
  - eropple 9y ago
    I agree with that. I would also note that there is a real and a mendacious reason for why we have lost that ability.
- perl4ever 9y ago
  It could be that people with capital have all the money because capital gains rates are significantly lower than earned income rates. Maybe we could adjust that so as not to continue distorting the economy?
  - eropple 9y ago
    I am not an economist (minor in undergrad, but whatever), but intuitively this sounds like a fair action to take. I'm exactly in the class of Americans who will be capital owners (and I have a leg up, I work in tech, we're the only people who turn labor into capital with such a miniscule overhead), I'm pretty okay with paying my way.
    - perl4ever 9y ago
      I wonder if equalizing rates would harm the software industry though - maybe the entire information economy as we know it is largely a product of the discrimination against labor leading to overinvestment in the industry with the highest returns per person. I can also see equalizing rates crashing the prices of investment assets. If it's worth doing in the first place (because the distortion is large) then it is necessarily going to be disruptive. For all we know, not favoring capital only delays the singularity...
sp332 9y ago
I think those estimates were based on this result from the JCT, "Distributional Effects Of The Conference Agreement For H.R.1" https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5054 https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5054 An example article: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/jct-estimates-amended-senate-tax-bill-skewed-to-top-hurts-many-low-and-middle https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/jct-estimates-amen...
lazyasciiart 9y ago
> Apparently half the country is buying into a narrative that their tax bills are going to go up, and I'm not sure where that idea is coming from. Well, you could try reading some analyses of the bill, which are pretty clear about what they're saying: >By 2027, more than half of all Americans — 53 percent — would pay more in taxes under the tax bill agreed to by House and Senate Republicans, a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center finds. That year, 82.8 percent of the bill’s benefit would go to the top 1 percent.....In 2018, the bill is an across-the-board cut for all income groups, but the biggest cuts are reserved for the upper middle class https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/18/16791174/republican-tax-bill-congress-conference-tax-policy-center https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/18/16791174/... And your last line is a non sequiter, because there are many taxes that are not personal income tax - some of them are even dealt with in this specific bill. Edit: I didn't downvote you, but I was tempted to because I can't imagine that you don't actually know that the bill contains temporary tax cuts for most people and permanent tax cuts for the very wealthy, so it reads as though you are building a strawman.
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  > By 2027, more than half of all Americans — 53 percent — would pay more in taxes Grossly misleading because the expiring tax cuts for individuals are an accounting trick and they will almost certainly be extended.
bcg1 9y ago
Many people correctly surmise that the benefits to individuals are temporary and will sunset, after which their taxes will be higher than when they started. Also, provisions such as repealing the individual health insurance mandate lead to an increase in other expenses, though admittedly those are not federal taxes. I work for a health insurance company, and earlier this year the company filed with the state regulators to say there might be close to a 50% hike in premiums, depending on whether or not the individual mandate was repealed. Whatever your feelings are about that politically, the increase in premiums will be real and directly related to that bill, and the money is fungible so people can't be blamed if they consider it an increase. One more thing, a deficit funded tax cut today means a tax increase tomorrow to pay for principal+interest. People could be thinking of that when they say their taxes will go up.
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  > benefits to individuals are temporary and will sunset, after which their taxes will be higher highly unlikely. they will be extended. > a deficit funded tax cut today means a tax increase tomorrow to pay for principal+interest no, it means the government creates more money. the deficits are never being paid back, ever. it is mathematically impossible.
  - perl4ever 9y ago
    It's mathematically impossible to pay back a "deficit" in general I think, once the time period in which it occurred is over. But more to the point, the deficit and the debt are important despite the fact that the debt is not expected or desired to be paid off. In order to maintain our way of life, the growth of the debt needs to approximate the growth of the economy in the long run, and be reduced if it overshoots. This is a concept I rather think some conservatives have given lip service to in the past. Are you one of the "fiscally responsible conservatives" I used to read about? The idea that there is a middle ground between hyperinflation and paying the debt off isn't terribly difficult, I would've thought.
    - saas_co_de 9y ago

eropple 9y ago

> At this point, there is no way of having a reduction in tax bills that doesn't overwhelming favor the top 50% of earners This is completely true. The reason the top half pay all the taxes is the top half have all the goddamned money. And that, of course, makes sense: the top half have the only realistic chance at accumulating enough labor-derived money to buy into capital and they've been doing exactly that for the last fifty years. Capital is not linear per-hour. Capital is a multiplier. That's why they have all the money. That they have all the money is the core and the source of the mess we're dealing with right now. Which means there is another question to be asked: should taxes be lowered? As someone very firmly in that top half, I am benefited by having people in the lower half of the income distribution not starving and dying in the streets, not dying of easily preventable injuries and illnesses, and not being so crushed by debt that revolution looks appealing. So are you. It's not about you, and it's not about me, but it's about us. We need to do better by us, so we can all keep this thing ticking along. And I gotta say, it's important not to miss that even that Bloomberg article elides a really, really important question: how much of that net $915 from that hypothetical renter now goes to (poorly) covering for the cuts in other services that will be necessitated to avoid budgetary disaster? It's a hard question, because nobody really knows, but it's a question whose answer will impact the people at the bottom of the income distribution the most, by far.

phyller 9y ago
> how much of that net $915 from that hypothetical renter now goes to (poorly) covering for the cuts in other services that will be necessitated to avoid budgetary disaster? It's a hard question, because nobody really knows, but it's a question whose answer will impact the people at the bottom of the income distribution the most, by far. Yes, I think that is the main point, and what we should be talking about. I feel like as a country we have lost the ability to have a discussion at that level of depth. So instead we dumb down our arguments to the point where we mislead people just so they will accept our point of view.
- eropple 9y ago
  I agree with that. I would also note that there is a real and a mendacious reason for why we have lost that ability.
perl4ever 9y ago
It could be that people with capital have all the money because capital gains rates are significantly lower than earned income rates. Maybe we could adjust that so as not to continue distorting the economy?
- eropple 9y ago
  I am not an economist (minor in undergrad, but whatever), but intuitively this sounds like a fair action to take. I'm exactly in the class of Americans who will be capital owners (and I have a leg up, I work in tech, we're the only people who turn labor into capital with such a miniscule overhead), I'm pretty okay with paying my way.
  - perl4ever 9y ago
    I wonder if equalizing rates would harm the software industry though - maybe the entire information economy as we know it is largely a product of the discrimination against labor leading to overinvestment in the industry with the highest returns per person. I can also see equalizing rates crashing the prices of investment assets. If it's worth doing in the first place (because the distortion is large) then it is necessarily going to be disruptive. For all we know, not favoring capital only delays the singularity...

sp332 9y ago

I think those estimates were based on this result from the JCT, "Distributional Effects Of The Conference Agreement For H.R.1" https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5054 https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5054 An example article: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/jct-estimates-amended-senate-tax-bill-skewed-to-top-hurts-many-low-and-middle https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/jct-estimates-amen...

lazyasciiart 9y ago

> Apparently half the country is buying into a narrative that their tax bills are going to go up, and I'm not sure where that idea is coming from. Well, you could try reading some analyses of the bill, which are pretty clear about what they're saying: >By 2027, more than half of all Americans — 53 percent — would pay more in taxes under the tax bill agreed to by House and Senate Republicans, a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center finds. That year, 82.8 percent of the bill’s benefit would go to the top 1 percent.....In 2018, the bill is an across-the-board cut for all income groups, but the biggest cuts are reserved for the upper middle class https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/18/16791174/republican-tax-bill-congress-conference-tax-policy-center https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/18/16791174/... And your last line is a non sequiter, because there are many taxes that are not personal income tax - some of them are even dealt with in this specific bill. Edit: I didn't downvote you, but I was tempted to because I can't imagine that you don't actually know that the bill contains temporary tax cuts for most people and permanent tax cuts for the very wealthy, so it reads as though you are building a strawman.

saas_co_de 9y ago
> By 2027, more than half of all Americans — 53 percent — would pay more in taxes Grossly misleading because the expiring tax cuts for individuals are an accounting trick and they will almost certainly be extended.

bcg1 9y ago

Many people correctly surmise that the benefits to individuals are temporary and will sunset, after which their taxes will be higher than when they started. Also, provisions such as repealing the individual health insurance mandate lead to an increase in other expenses, though admittedly those are not federal taxes. I work for a health insurance company, and earlier this year the company filed with the state regulators to say there might be close to a 50% hike in premiums, depending on whether or not the individual mandate was repealed. Whatever your feelings are about that politically, the increase in premiums will be real and directly related to that bill, and the money is fungible so people can't be blamed if they consider it an increase. One more thing, a deficit funded tax cut today means a tax increase tomorrow to pay for principal+interest. People could be thinking of that when they say their taxes will go up.

saas_co_de 9y ago
> benefits to individuals are temporary and will sunset, after which their taxes will be higher highly unlikely. they will be extended. > a deficit funded tax cut today means a tax increase tomorrow to pay for principal+interest no, it means the government creates more money. the deficits are never being paid back, ever. it is mathematically impossible.
- perl4ever 9y ago
  It's mathematically impossible to pay back a "deficit" in general I think, once the time period in which it occurred is over. But more to the point, the deficit and the debt are important despite the fact that the debt is not expected or desired to be paid off. In order to maintain our way of life, the growth of the debt needs to approximate the growth of the economy in the long run, and be reduced if it overshoots. This is a concept I rather think some conservatives have given lip service to in the past. Are you one of the "fiscally responsible conservatives" I used to read about? The idea that there is a middle ground between hyperinflation and paying the debt off isn't terribly difficult, I would've thought.
  - saas_co_de 9y ago