7 ms·

The Democrats had control of the presidency and the house in 2022 when this provision first went into effect but had 2 fewer senators (1 fewer if you count the

The Democrats had control of the presidency and the house in 2022 when this provision first went into effect but had 2 fewer senators (1 fewer if you count the tie-breaking VP). Why didn't they try to change it? Is there some reason a change in the tax code like this can't be modified or repealed once its in place?

tomrod 1y ago
They tried. They had Senate spoilers.
- candiddevmike 1y ago
  As a progressive, it seems like the Democrats always have Senate spoilers...
  - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
    Providing spoilers was the explicitly designed purpose of the US Senate. It's not a one-sided problem - Senate spoilers are also why the Affordable Care Act didn't get repealed in 2017.
    - tomrod 1y ago
      Explicitly?
      - glompers 1y ago
        US Senator was an office initially designed to be selected by state legislatures rather than by direct popular election like the representatives. To a populist or a party boss, that might count as a spoiler to the will of the people or to the will of those in DC, or to both. But I may misinterpret GP's point.
        mayneack 1y ago
        I assume the person you're replying to is talking about the Filibuster and supermajority requirements not the direct election history. The filibuster is a senate rule not a constitutional design, so it wasn't part of the "design". Maybe they're both different ways of adding veto points to the same effect, but I think spoilers as "explicit design" is probably not how I'd describe it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...
      - dboreham 1y ago
        Not parent but the founders were like folks writing smart contract code, thinking about various exploits and vulnerabilities (that might reduce the wealth of their class) so many of the seemingly dysfunctional elements of the system turn out to be designed deliberately to be dysfunctional. Feature not bug.
        wvenable 1y ago
        They were not thinking about various exploits and vulnerabilities but rather making whatever compromises were necessary in order to form the union. It was negotiation, not planning.
        b112 1y ago
        A compromise can also be a feature to resolve a bug, from the point of view of the one demanding it.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > As a progressive, it seems like the Democrats always have Senate spoilers... With Republicans usually being dominant in a number of states, if Democrats have a Senate majority, it is usually both narrow and dependent on a very small number of Democratic and/or Dem-leading moderate independent Senators from Republican-majority states who vote with the party on leadership, but are soft (or firmly opposed to the progressive preference) on a number of issues important to progressives. If the US were approximately an equal democracy, this might be less of an issue.
    - tomrod 1y ago
      Hell, just first past the post would eviscerate the current parties.
      - tomrod 1y ago
        Argh. Too late to edit. Something else outside first past the post* like ranked choice voting.
        Filligree 1y ago
        Which is why they’ll never vote for it. Such changes are remarkable rare. :(
    - rayiner 1y ago
      > If the US were approximately an equal democracy, this might be less of an issue Equal to what?
      - paulryanrogers 1y ago
        Equal in voting rights. Gerrymandering has been perfected by Republicans. Through that they manage to dilute votes of the opposition. Other measures discourage voters likely to vote against them, like people who cannot easily take time off to vote in person or who have changed their name. Blocking rank choice and maintaining first past the post also disenfranchise third parties, and reinforces the power of incumbents. Trump himself admitted it's better for Republicans when fewer people vote.
  - kenjackson 1y ago
    But this is the type of thing that progressives would like support (tax big corporate America).
    - bloppe 1y ago
      This tax is far more consequential for small companies than for large ones. It probably actually benefits larger companies because it hobbles competition.
    - rezonant 1y ago
      No, this is a misunderstanding of the kind of taxation policy progressives tend to favor. Taxation on profit for businesses should be high, and taxation on upper tiers of individual income should be high, but taxation on funds businesses use to reinvest should be exempted or deductable. Basically the taxation we had in place after WW2 and on, with a steep corporate tax rate and more or less a maximum income for individuals. The R&D exemption removed in the 2017 bill, and discussed in the article, is key to that, because it encourages corporations to reinvest their income in building new products and paying workers rather than taking it directly as profit-- after all, at least they could reap the rewards (in growth and revenue) of the R&D later, instead of just giving the money to the government as taxes.
      - rayiner 1y ago
        I don’t think most progressives think about it in that detail. Raise taxes on the rich tech companies that are gentrifying san francisco.
        dgb23 1y ago
        I‘m not American but the above description of a tax policy is what I hear a lot from progressives in media.
        stahtops 1y ago
        At first glance I support ... "social and economic equality" and "reforms to improve human conditions, combat corruption, and reduce inequality". Am I progressive? If you ask me "should corporations pay more taxes?" I will say, yes. Famously so does Warren Buffet, is he also a progressive? If you ask me, "hey should we gut tax incentives for R&D spending in the USA?" I will say, uhhh no? probably a bad choice?
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    And get blamed for it. If every single Republican and two Democrats vote against something guess who people blame?
  - cma 1y ago
    Both parties tend to when there is a narrow majority, e.g. McCain thumbs downing at the repeal of the ACA.
naijaboiler 1y ago
Why should they? Why did we allow a president to put in tax raise for the future. Replicants were playing politics from the start. Pass a bad bill, and then hope to get about it when the bad parts kick in when the other side woo be in power
vineyardmike 1y ago
Politics are complicated. Generally, in tax bills they try to keep them "neutral" where any tax cuts or tax breaks are coupled with tax increases elsewhere BUT they tend to report the 10-year affect for whatever reason. This bill provided a ~30% cut in corporate tax on profits, with a delayed increase in tax cost on Software R&D pushed to the next term. If the next party wants to reverse it, they'd have to find the money with an increase in tax - directly undoing it would be a ~50% increase in corporate tax rate, which (I guess?) would be a tough sell politically. Meanwhile, the tax code on software engineering sounds too niche to expend political capital on. Either way, its another example of how corporate America is trading long-term growth (R&D, product development) for short term gain (lower taxes today).

tomrod 1y ago

They tried. They had Senate spoilers.

candiddevmike 1y ago
As a progressive, it seems like the Democrats always have Senate spoilers...
- SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
  Providing spoilers was the explicitly designed purpose of the US Senate. It's not a one-sided problem - Senate spoilers are also why the Affordable Care Act didn't get repealed in 2017.
  - tomrod 1y ago
    Explicitly?
    - glompers 1y ago
      US Senator was an office initially designed to be selected by state legislatures rather than by direct popular election like the representatives. To a populist or a party boss, that might count as a spoiler to the will of the people or to the will of those in DC, or to both. But I may misinterpret GP's point.
      - mayneack 1y ago
        I assume the person you're replying to is talking about the Filibuster and supermajority requirements not the direct election history. The filibuster is a senate rule not a constitutional design, so it wasn't part of the "design". Maybe they're both different ways of adding veto points to the same effect, but I think spoilers as "explicit design" is probably not how I'd describe it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...
    - dboreham 1y ago
      Not parent but the founders were like folks writing smart contract code, thinking about various exploits and vulnerabilities (that might reduce the wealth of their class) so many of the seemingly dysfunctional elements of the system turn out to be designed deliberately to be dysfunctional. Feature not bug.
      - wvenable 1y ago
        They were not thinking about various exploits and vulnerabilities but rather making whatever compromises were necessary in order to form the union. It was negotiation, not planning.
        b112 1y ago
        A compromise can also be a feature to resolve a bug, from the point of view of the one demanding it.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > As a progressive, it seems like the Democrats always have Senate spoilers... With Republicans usually being dominant in a number of states, if Democrats have a Senate majority, it is usually both narrow and dependent on a very small number of Democratic and/or Dem-leading moderate independent Senators from Republican-majority states who vote with the party on leadership, but are soft (or firmly opposed to the progressive preference) on a number of issues important to progressives. If the US were approximately an equal democracy, this might be less of an issue.
  - tomrod 1y ago
    Hell, just first past the post would eviscerate the current parties.
    - tomrod 1y ago
      Argh. Too late to edit. Something else outside first past the post* like ranked choice voting.
      - Filligree 1y ago
        Which is why they’ll never vote for it. Such changes are remarkable rare. :(
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > If the US were approximately an equal democracy, this might be less of an issue Equal to what?
    - paulryanrogers 1y ago
      Equal in voting rights. Gerrymandering has been perfected by Republicans. Through that they manage to dilute votes of the opposition. Other measures discourage voters likely to vote against them, like people who cannot easily take time off to vote in person or who have changed their name. Blocking rank choice and maintaining first past the post also disenfranchise third parties, and reinforces the power of incumbents. Trump himself admitted it's better for Republicans when fewer people vote.
- kenjackson 1y ago
  But this is the type of thing that progressives would like support (tax big corporate America).
  - bloppe 1y ago
    This tax is far more consequential for small companies than for large ones. It probably actually benefits larger companies because it hobbles competition.
  - rezonant 1y ago
    No, this is a misunderstanding of the kind of taxation policy progressives tend to favor. Taxation on profit for businesses should be high, and taxation on upper tiers of individual income should be high, but taxation on funds businesses use to reinvest should be exempted or deductable. Basically the taxation we had in place after WW2 and on, with a steep corporate tax rate and more or less a maximum income for individuals. The R&D exemption removed in the 2017 bill, and discussed in the article, is key to that, because it encourages corporations to reinvest their income in building new products and paying workers rather than taking it directly as profit-- after all, at least they could reap the rewards (in growth and revenue) of the R&D later, instead of just giving the money to the government as taxes.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      I don’t think most progressives think about it in that detail. Raise taxes on the rich tech companies that are gentrifying san francisco.
      - dgb23 1y ago
        I‘m not American but the above description of a tax policy is what I hear a lot from progressives in media.
      - stahtops 1y ago
        At first glance I support ... "social and economic equality" and "reforms to improve human conditions, combat corruption, and reduce inequality". Am I progressive? If you ask me "should corporations pay more taxes?" I will say, yes. Famously so does Warren Buffet, is he also a progressive? If you ask me, "hey should we gut tax incentives for R&D spending in the USA?" I will say, uhhh no? probably a bad choice?
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  And get blamed for it. If every single Republican and two Democrats vote against something guess who people blame?
- cma 1y ago
  Both parties tend to when there is a narrow majority, e.g. McCain thumbs downing at the repeal of the ACA.

naijaboiler 1y ago

Why should they? Why did we allow a president to put in tax raise for the future. Replicants were playing politics from the start. Pass a bad bill, and then hope to get about it when the bad parts kick in when the other side woo be in power

vineyardmike 1y ago

Politics are complicated. Generally, in tax bills they try to keep them "neutral" where any tax cuts or tax breaks are coupled with tax increases elsewhere BUT they tend to report the 10-year affect for whatever reason. This bill provided a ~30% cut in corporate tax on profits, with a delayed increase in tax cost on Software R&D pushed to the next term. If the next party wants to reverse it, they'd have to find the money with an increase in tax - directly undoing it would be a ~50% increase in corporate tax rate, which (I guess?) would be a tough sell politically. Meanwhile, the tax code on software engineering sounds too niche to expend political capital on. Either way, its another example of how corporate America is trading long-term growth (R&D, product development) for short term gain (lower taxes today).