3 ms·
> The "party A" is criticizing that it was not a tax cut, but a wealth transfer from already poor people to rich ones. The tax cuts on middle class were made so
by bhupy 6y ago
> The "party A" is criticizing that it was not a tax cut, but a wealth transfer from already poor people to rich ones. The tax cuts on middle class were made so they gradually are expiring. While the corporate tax cuts (which BTW: didn't improve economy, and that was already apparent long before COVID-19).
> BTW in 2025 the tax cuts on middle class will expire completely, and unless you make $200k or more you will be affected.
This is not because "party B" wants to raise taxes on the middle class. It's because Senate budget reconciliation rules require a revote after 8 years for certain revenue changes. It's a parliamentarian technicality. There's almost no doubt that, if they were in power in 2025, they will vote to continue those cuts. If it was up to them, they would reduce taxes to 0 across the board.
> Oh and one interesting thing, the 2018 tax cuts also made it even more beneficial to outsource jobs to other countries, I suspect that was the primarily reason trump started trade war to mask it.
None of this is relevant to the discussion at hand: almost everyone got a Federal tax cut in 2017 (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-t...), which means that there's room for tax increases at the State level.
- takeda 6y ago> This is not because "party B" wants to raise taxes on the middle class. It's because Senate budget reconciliation rules require a revote after 8 years for certain revenue changes. It's a parliamentarian technicality. There's almost no doubt that, if they were in power in 2025, they will vote to continue those cuts. If it was up to them, they would reduce taxes to 0 across the board. Yep, they didn't even get it down to 0 and already increased our debt by 2 trillion (more than Obama). Is their plan just start printing money when needed, because some countries already tried that. > None of this is relevant to the discussion at hand: almost everyone got a Federal tax cut in 2017 (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-t https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-t...), which means that there's room for tax increases at the State level. This is exactly what Democrats were complaining about look at the income and how many god tax cut, realize that ones who didn't got it either they got the same amount of tax or (more likely) paid more. Compare that to a median income, also be aware that the individual tax cuts for middle class gradually expire every year.
- bhupy 6y ago> Yep, they didn't even get it down to 0 and already increased our debt by 2 trillion (more than Obama) Just FYI, the debt didn't increase as a result of the tax cut, it increased as a result of spending. The Federal government's tax revenue actually increased after the tax cut, which means that the deficit is being driven by spending increases, not tax decreases. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-a...