dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
“Save $60 a month so the CEO can save $10,000.”
It’s a wonder that approval is so low.
For anyone interested in actual analysis, instead of all the bullshit headlines, here goes:
Roughly speaking, for most people, this is about a 2.5-3% income boost. Makes sense as the senate plan in alot of places is about 3% less than the current tax structure.
So someone who makes $50k saves about $1k. Someone who makes $75k saves $2k. $100k saves $2.5k, $125k saves $3.2k, etc. That's all for single filers, its roughly double for married filers. So it's certainly a decent chunk of change to what most people would consider middle class folks. It's not $60/month.
The averages that get published are much less, solely for one reason. A very specific subset of people get screwed, and that's high income earners in states with high income taxes. CA, Oregon, NY, DC, NJ are all around 9%, or higher. Obviously this is a political win for the Pubs since none of those states vote Republican, but discounting that, if a state chooses to spend more on public services than another state, should the federal government subsidize that partially by giving a state tax deduction? Logically I'd have to say no.
The idea that all rich people are doing better under this plan is silly. There are a million board lawyers and accountants here that are partners in law firms and they're all getting screwed. People who are lawyers in California and making millions of dollars are year pay hundreds of thousands of california taxes per year and no longer can deduct those so are paying a huge chunk back to the federal government.
In exchange, the guy who starts a new restaurants, or a lawnscaping business, or something that actually produces jobs gets a pretty sizable benefit. I can assure you lawyers and accounts provide very little tangible benefit and for the most part are regulatory waste. Not giving them a tax break seems reasonable, even if its not in my particular interest.
Homeowners with houses worth over $500k also get screwed some, but any house over that amount is nothing more than a luxury anyways, and the preferential tax treatment for such was likely misguided anyways.
In summary, the merits of this bill do warrant more discussion than simply partisan headline bickering, that's why its disappointing to see that's all you're getting out there.