3 ms·

You're getting down voted for sounding partisan I suspect, but regardless of the politics, you're absolutely right. That bill was a huge change across the US ta

You're getting down voted for sounding partisan I suspect, but regardless of the politics, you're absolutely right. That bill was a huge change across the US tax system.

acdha 3y ago
Yeah, it’s an election year so even a literal statement of fact is going to be downvoted by some people. Hopefully at some point they’ll have an epiphany about whether they should self-identify with a party so strongly when an accurate descriptions of its actions feels like an attack, but I’m not as optimistic about that as I used to be.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  It’s a partisan statement since you only mention the upper tax bracket and not that it also slashed taxes for the lowest one completely and reduced them for basically everyone while making changes to a ton of other things (like child tax credits) as well. You’re over simplifying and singling out your pet political issue in an effort to sway opinion to your political leaning. If you had just said it was due to those tax cuts you likely wouldn’t have been downvoted.
  - acdha 3y ago
    The reason the author I quoted said that is that most of the cost comes from the top. If we were taking on a couple trillion in extra debt, that seems like a rather minimal benefit to give ⅔ of it to the richest people. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/distributional-analysis-conference-agreement-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/full https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/distributional-...
  - wrs 3y ago
    Most of the need for the reconciliation was the cut to the top tax bracket, where most of the the tax revenue comes from (e.g., the top 1% of earners pay 42% of the taxes [0]). So focusing on that bracket seems valid in this context. [0] https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2023-update/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/summary-latest-fe...

You're getting down voted for sounding partisan I suspect, but regardless of the politics, you're absolutely right. That bill was a huge change across the US tax system.

acdha 3y ago

Yeah, it’s an election year so even a literal statement of fact is going to be downvoted by some people. Hopefully at some point they’ll have an epiphany about whether they should self-identify with a party so strongly when an accurate descriptions of its actions feels like an attack, but I’m not as optimistic about that as I used to be.

edgyquant 3y ago
It’s a partisan statement since you only mention the upper tax bracket and not that it also slashed taxes for the lowest one completely and reduced them for basically everyone while making changes to a ton of other things (like child tax credits) as well. You’re over simplifying and singling out your pet political issue in an effort to sway opinion to your political leaning. If you had just said it was due to those tax cuts you likely wouldn’t have been downvoted.
- acdha 3y ago
  The reason the author I quoted said that is that most of the cost comes from the top. If we were taking on a couple trillion in extra debt, that seems like a rather minimal benefit to give ⅔ of it to the richest people. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/distributional-analysis-conference-agreement-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/full https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/distributional-...
- wrs 3y ago
  Most of the need for the reconciliation was the cut to the top tax bracket, where most of the the tax revenue comes from (e.g., the top 1% of earners pay 42% of the taxes [0]). So focusing on that bracket seems valid in this context. [0] https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2023-update/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/summary-latest-fe...