• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Biggest Reform EVER passed thread

If the GOP tax plan is so good, why do they lie so much about it?

Quote
————
...All we really know for sure is that for as long as Republicans manage to hold onto federal political power, the owners of highly profitable businesses and heirs to large fortunes will get to further enrich themselves — gorging on tax cuts while the rest of us end up holding the bag.
————
 
Lies, Incoherence and Rage on Tax Cuts

Quote
————
One thing you can count on in 21st-century U.S. politics is that Republicans will lie about taxes. They did it under George W. Bush, they did it under Barack Obama and they’re still doing it under Donald Trump.

Yet this time is different. It’s not just that the lies have gotten even more brazen. There’s now a combination of incoherence and rage that we, or at least I, haven’t seen before. These days, they can’t even seem to get their fake story straight — and they literally start yelling obscenities when someone tries to point out the facts.

G.O.P. lies about taxes generally involve two issues: who is hurt or helped by tax changes, and what these changes will do to the budget...

...So what’s different this time? As in the Bush years, Republicans are claiming to be offering a middle-class tax cut. But where Bush truly was cutting taxes on the middle class, just much less than he was on the wealthy, current Republican plans would raise those taxes on many lower- and middle-income families, even as they go down for the wealthy. (Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, claims that only “million-dollar earners” would see tax increases. This is the opposite of the truth.)...

...How can Republicans like Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, pretend to be helping the middle class? It depends crucially on a new kind of budget gimmick: Both the House and Senate tax-cut bills do contain some middle-class tax breaks — but only for the first few years. Then they expire.

Take one of Ryan’s favorite examples, a family with two children and earning $59,000 a year. That family would indeed get a tax break next year. But the break would rapidly dwindle and turn into a tax increase by 2024...

...Not long ago, leading Republicans claimed to be deeply concerned about budget deficits. Only fools and centrists took the Republicans seriously. Still, the abrupt shift to nonchalance about adding trillions to the debt in order to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy is causing a bit of whiplash even among cynics. How do they justify the shift?

Well, they don’t seem to have settled on a story. Mnuchin keeps asserting that tax cuts will pay for themselves, going so far as to claim (falsely) that Treasury has released a study showing this. Mick Mulvaney, the budget director, cheerfully acknowledges that they’re using gimmicks to pass a bill that permanently cuts taxes on corporations, and not to worry. Whatever works, it seems.

So we’re really looking at an unprecedented level of dishonesty here. But what happens when you try to explain what’s going on? When Senator Sherrod Brown tried to point out, correctly, that the Senate G.O.P.’s tax bill heavily favors the rich, Senator Orrin Hatch exploded, calling it “bull crap” and asserting that he grew up poor (which is relevant why, exactly?).

Sorry, but this isn’t the righteous anger of a man falsely accused of wrongdoing. It’s the rage con men always exhibit when caught out in their con.

But what’s the con about? The very incoherence of the arguments Republicans are making for their plans shows that it’s not about helping the economy, let alone ordinary families. It really is about making the rich richer, at everyone else’s expense. If this be bull crap, make the most of it.
————
 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/20/republican-tax-cuts-democrats?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=fb_cif#link_time=1511195655

The "starve the beast" theory of deficit-exploding tax cuts, as explained by a Reagan and GHW Bush adviser. Destroy the fisc with tax cuts for the wealthy, then blame the next Democratic administration/Congress for the result and demand spending cuts, Dems have to raise taxes a little, GOP gets back in power, rinse repeat. Story of the last 30 years. People may be starting to see through it a little bit because it's so ridiculously brazen this time, but a large percentage of the voting public will not pay attention at this level of detail.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/20/republican-tax-cuts-democrats?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=fb_cif#link_time=1511195655

The "starve the beast" theory of deficit-exploding tax cuts, as explained by a Reagan and GHW Bush adviser. Destroy the fisc with tax cuts for the wealthy, then blame the next Democratic administration/Congress for the result and demand spending cuts, Dems have to raise taxes a little, GOP gets back in power, rinse repeat. Story of the last 30 years. People may be starting to see through it a little bit because it's so ridiculously brazen this time, but a large percentage of the voting public will not pay attention at this level of detail.

+1
 
golly, it's as if Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and Donald Trump really don't give a damn about the economy or America and are driven by personal desire to stay in power or, in Trump's case, be a cool guy.

Pretty much no one likes this shitpile bill. Except Palma who apparently needs the $400.
 
One of the Pod Save America made the point that these guys gave themselves $1.5 trillion to spend, they could have created a bill that was popular. Instead they decided to go with deep corporate tax cuts that are both expensive and unpopular. And since they want to make them permanent, everyone will have to pay for it.

Also, as long as I'm posting, I just want to point out that the individual tax cuts expire in seven years, not ten. The corporate tax cuts are so expensive they can't even cover a full ten years of individual tax cuts.

BTW, just realized that one of the Bush tax cuts was called the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. We're still living through W's third term, without any of his redeeming qualities.
 
Yea. If Dems were in charge and trying to do something needed and good for a trillion and half dollars, the Pubs would be apoplectic about the debt.
 
You guys sure read some fair and balanced takes. And no where in any of those takes does it mention the average renter saves $2k/year/person.
 
Effects on housing? Lower home values. More renters with fewer renal units available. wonder what that will do to rental costs?

Per the New York article in post 881, which contains detailed discussion of the points I posted. See points 1 and 2.
 
Are they taking away your health insurance or are they taking away the penalty for not having health insurance if you don't want it?
 
Effects on housing? Lower home values. More renters with fewer renal units available. wonder what that will do to rental costs?

Per the New York article in post 881, which contains detailed discussion of the points I posted. See points 1 and 2.

Renters aren't renters because they want to be. Its cause home prices are too high. Per that article, I'll gladly take a 17% drop in home values in LA.
 
Lose the mandate I think the estimate is 20% increase in premiums, 20% increase on 833 dollar average family premium a month means 2000 dollar healthcare cost increase minus tax savings from reform equals crumbs if that.
 
Quote
————
On net, these measures are likely to reduce home values and push Americans toward renting instead of buying. It’s unclear how dramatic these effects will be — economists have had little time to study them.

Now, there are sound policy arguments for eliminating the mortgage-interest deduction, and encouraging renting over home ownership. But there are also sound reasons for opposing tax changes that would reduce the value of the middle class’s primary investment tool (housing), while increasing the value of the wealthy’s (corporate stocks). Regardless, GOP lawmakers have not even bothered to make the former or to rebut the latter. In fact, there’s been virtually no public debate about housing policy on Capitol Hill, even as Republicans are on the cusp of reshaping it.

The absence of open deliberation on this subject isn’t just contrary to democratic ideals — it’s also profoundly reckless. The downside risks of a decline in home values are immense, as anyone who was sentient nine years ago is surely aware. And some on Wall Street believe the Republican bills just might give the 2008 crisis a needless sequel.

The story goes like this: Ending the property-tax deduction would drastically increase the cost of homeownership in high-income tax states (a.k.a., where much of the nation’s high-value real estate is). As the annual cost of a home goes up, the value of that home goes down. According to a study commissioned by the (thoroughly biased) National Association of Realtors, eliminating this deduction alone would cause housing prices to dip between 10 and 17 percent. Vanity Fair’s William Cohan lays out one Wall Street executive’s worst fears about what could follow from that:

[A drop in home valuations that large] would wipe out a huge amount of homeowner equity, with the usual expected consequences: the sick feeling that comes from knowing that suddenly you are poorer, which can then lead to lower consumer spending, kicking off a recession. Furthermore, if the value of homes goes down, then whatever equity has been built up in those homes will also go down, and the ability to unlock that equity — through home-equity loans or reverse mortgages — will also decrease. Lower home values could also lead to problems — again — for the government-sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that have guaranteed some home mortgages, which are secured by homes worth materially less. New problems for the G.S.E.s will make it harder for people to get mortgages, leading to a lower level of home ownership than already exists.

It’s possible that Cohan’s source is a Chicken Little. But congressional Republicans have made no effort to confirm that they aren’t about to bring down the sky.
————
 
Renters aren't renters because they want to be. Its cause home prices are too high. Per that article, I'll gladly take a 17% drop in home values in LA.
Only home prices?
 
Lose the mandate I think the estimate is 20% increase in premiums, 20% increase on 833 dollar average family premium a month means 2000 dollar healthcare cost increase minus tax savings from reform equals crumbs if that.

Or they save $2k from taxes plus another $4k of healthcare premiums they have to pay now that they don't want to. I broke my leg 2 weeks ago and paid for everything out of pocket. It cost me $210. Why would I pay for an insurance premium? Why does every large company self-fund?

When I was 25 and self-employed I sure as shit didn't pay for health insurance.
 
Or they save $2k from taxes plus another $4k of healthcare premiums they have to pay now that they don't want to. I broke my leg 2 weeks ago and paid for everything out of pocket. It cost me $210. Why would I pay for an insurance premium? Why does every large company self-fund?

When I was 25 and self-employed I sure as shit didn't pay for health insurance.

where, thailand?
 
Or they save $2k from taxes plus another $4k of healthcare premiums they have to pay now that they don't want to. I broke my leg 2 weeks ago and paid for everything out of pocket. It cost me $210. Why would I pay for an insurance premium? Why does every large company self-fund?

When I was 25 and self-employed I sure as shit didn't pay for health insurance.

where, thailand?
 
Back
Top