Had a question about the Tax Reform Legislation. Since that ridiculous 50 (51) votes to pass legislation stuff is expired in the Senate, does that mean for the upcoming Tax Reform bill that we'll need 60 votes in the Senate to pass it?
No. They can do one a (financial) year. 2017's was healthcare. 2018's is taxes.
Believe it or not the GOP is actually more divided on taxes than healthcare. With ACA repeal, you have the asshole faction that wanted to cut everything and gave no shits about the harm vs the other side that wanted to cut what they could without royally pissing off their voters to the point that they get sent home. With tax reform the splits are
1. Deficit hawks that insist that the deficit stays the same or shrinks vs the faction that views the deficit as a non-issue regardless of who controls what and the bullshit faction that only cares about the deficit when they can use it as an excuse to try and undermine democrats. This is the division that could kill anything being done. As has been pointed out the GOP has likely cut everything that could be cut, plus stuff that probably shouldn't have been cut, but didn't elicit a massive public outcry. It's looking like trying to make this neutral or less will royally fuck over those that aren't rich. (also to be blunt, we don't need more tax cuts, we need to rich to pay their fair share and give everyone a raise instead of keeping the entirety of the wealth gains to themselves aka the rich need to stop being a bunch of cheap assholes.
2.Temp cuts vs permanent. Again they probably don't have anything that could be cut to make this work. Also it sounds like a bunch of industries don't want temp tax cuts because they can't game them as well as permanent tax cuts.
3. If cuts are made, who gets them and who gets fucked to make them happen. The local and state deductions have been the big one we've talked about (I've learned that SALT is used to describe them). Right now there are a number of republicans that have realized that this could cost them re-election because killing SALT means they're raising taxes on their voters and they need people outside of their base to win. These are the kind of people less likely to believe that the GOP wouldn't be at fault for their federal taxes going up, after passing tax reform that makes their federal taxes go up (I'm sure some of their base will make the connection as well, but I'll concede they have a decent chunk of ill-informed base members that lack the critical thinking to make the connection on their own and will easily get suckered by the propaganda). Also it seems that numbers increasingly point to the rest of this stuff fucking over non-wealthy people. Finally, there seems to be some in the GOP that still remember that you have to have money on hand to pay for all this shit that US citizens want and the ones that will be the least happy about losing their shit have way more votes than the wealthy d-bags that insist taxes are still too high even though they can blows millions on stupid shit (like idiot vanity candidates in last years Republican Presidential Primary).
Also Trump being Trump might have just made this harder to pull off. I mentioned that Corker could prove to be a wild card since he is retiring. Since Corker doesn't have to give anymore shits about his donors or the most rabid among his base, he could either do what he wants to do, what's best for the party, what's best for Trump or what's best for the nation. Right now this is doesn't look like it'll end way for the nation or really the GOP's long term prospects. Plus, Trump decided to piss in Corker's cheerios and start a feud with him. Right now Corker is opposed to this plan.
Really getting on Corker's bad side and pushing for something that isn't achievable was really fucking stupid. GOP could only afford two defections. I think Collins comes against this because it would hose her prospects politically regardless of whether she runs for Governor of Maine or runs for re-election in the Senate. McCain and Murkowski are question marks. I'm leaning toward McCain likely put some breaks on some of these ideas, even if this wasn't likely his last term, I kind of see him being offended by some of these given that he did push for campaign finance reform. Rand says no for right now, probably could be bribed, but the question then becomes if he can be bribed without losing others. Both Lee and Rubio are saying no for right now as well, not sure how serious they are about trying to not fuck the middle class. Finally, Cochran is out of the Senate for medical stuff, so it's not exactly clear if they could get him when they need to (sure claims are they can, but we'll see how reality pans out). Based on all that, I think we're a ways from seeing that is ready for a vote in the Senate, let along reconciliation between the House and Senate (Neither chamber seems to be on the same page).
Always worth point out if they go past Dec 12th, that opens the way for Alabama to to throw a monkey wrench into the works. If Moore wins, that GOPe doesn't retain the seat and we'll likely have to deal with one more alt-right republican in their caucus that pushes for an untenable position on tax reform. If Moore loses, the GOP will have one less vote to work with.
Expect the the GOP to pull out all the stops to try and desperately get something passed and then if they do get something, try to sell it being 1000 times grander than it actually is. The GOP is desperate for a major win that they can claim shows they deserved to have control of the Senate, House and White House and that they deserved their donor's money. That's the say be fearful that the GOP does something really fucking dumb because they might focus too much on getting their win; however, that could also result in them falling short if 3 or more of their members don't give a shit about what the donor class feels they are entitled too. I'm also moving to a position where I don't think the GOP wins this. Anything that would make their top dollar donors happy probably costs them dearly and their is nothing that would stop a coalition of democrats and sane republicans re-instating repealed taxes on the rich and adding new ones. Granted if they don't deliver something for their donors, their donors might see to it that they don't win their next election by funding someone else.
Is there anything stopping them from, say, cutting Maine taxpayers a better deal than everyone else to try and buy Collins's vote? That's basically what they tried for healthcare in the end.
Id be honestly surprised if the deficit hawks actually continue to be deficit hawks to the point where they'll hold up the bill. Conservatives are generally only concerned about the deficit when the other guys are in power (see: the entire GWB administration)
What could well happen is these divisions stop "Tax Reform" from being anything but the Bush Tax Cuts Mk 2.
So still bad but not near as bad as it could be.
Actual Tax Reform took Reagan 6 years, and he had a landslide mandate in between. We were never going to get that. It was always going to be Bush Tax Cuts 2: Accounting Boogaloo.
+6
Options
lwt1973King of ThievesSyndicationRegistered Userregular
Administration in power: It's a goal, not a commitment.
Now: It's very hard not to give the rich tax cuts.
"He's sulking in his tent like Achilles! It's the Iliad?...from Homer?! READ A BOOK!!" -Handy
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
I still don't entirely understand how the GOP thinks they're going to push a large deficit-increasing corporate tax cut through reconciliation.
Reconciliation requires the bill to be deficit neutral outside the 10-year budgeting window. But because of the way that corporate tax law allows pushing liabilities from one year into another, you can't simply have a 10-year corporate tax cut that sunsets (the way the Bush tax cuts to incomes were structured), since that'll actually affect tax receipts 15 years out or more.
Now, there are ways of trying to overcome this. Change the 10-year window to a 20-year window. (Suggested, but dropped.) Tell the CBO to use dynamic-scoring instead of static-scoring to estimate budget effects (will likely happen, but insufficient to cover up all the red ink). Make the corporate tax cut very short term (say, 3 years long). But I remember reading a bunch of articles in the spring that basically concluded none of these solutions was actually viable; even a 3- or 5-year long temporary corporate tax cut would have measurable effects outside the budget window. Back then, the plan was to use some mechanism that'd raise a ton of revenue in the outlying years to balance things out, e.g., Ryan's Border Adjustment Tax. But now that that proposal is dead, has anybody heard how they intend to square this circle?
If they're not careful, the Senate parliamentarian will just throw everything out as incompatible with the reconciliation process. I guess they can always overrule the parliamentarian or eliminate the filibuster, but McConnell seems very loath to do that, out of recognition that the filibuster will be the only defense the right will have the next time there's a reascendent left.
I still don't entirely understand how the GOP thinks they're going to push a large deficit-increasing corporate tax cut through reconciliation.
Reconciliation requires the bill to be deficit neutral outside the 10-year budgeting window. But because of the way that corporate tax law allows pushing liabilities from one year into another, you can't simply have a 10-year corporate tax cut that sunsets (the way the Bush tax cuts to incomes were structured), since that'll actually affect tax receipts 15 years out or more.
Now, there are ways of trying to overcome this. Change the 10-year window to a 20-year window. (Suggested, but dropped.) Tell the CBO to use dynamic-scoring instead of static-scoring to estimate budget effects (will likely happen, but insufficient to cover up all the red ink). Make the corporate tax cut very short term (say, 3 years long). But I remember reading a bunch of articles in the spring that basically concluded none of these solutions was actually viable; even a 3- or 5-year long temporary corporate tax cut would have measurable effects outside the budget window. Back then, the plan was to use some mechanism that'd raise a ton of revenue in the outlying years to balance things out, e.g., Ryan's Border Adjustment Tax. But now that that proposal is dead, has anybody heard how they intend to square this circle?
If they're not careful, the Senate parliamentarian will just throw everything out as incompatible with the reconciliation process. I guess they can always overrule the parliamentarian or eliminate the filibuster, but McConnell seems very loath to do that, out of recognition that the filibuster will be the only defense the right will have the next time there's a reascendent left.
I don't know why you say he seems loath to do that. He was absolutely ready to do that for reconciliation this year. All of the healthcare stuff proposed had been ruled to be in violation of reconciliation. They just didn't have the requisite 50 votes to get far enough to need to throw the parliamentarian out.
Is there anything stopping them from, say, cutting Maine taxpayers a better deal than everyone else to try and buy Collins's vote? That's basically what they tried for healthcare in the end.
I would have thought federal taxes apply to everyone the same. Of course, I would have thought the same about federal health care regulations...
Is there anything stopping them from, say, cutting Maine taxpayers a better deal than everyone else to try and buy Collins's vote? That's basically what they tried for healthcare in the end.
Strictly speaking? As far as my googles tell me, yes, this can be done. It's never been done, though, and it's liable to backfire because come election it won't be Maine paying less, it'll be everyone else paying more.
I still don't entirely understand how the GOP thinks they're going to push a large deficit-increasing corporate tax cut through reconciliation.
Reconciliation requires the bill to be deficit neutral outside the 10-year budgeting window. But because of the way that corporate tax law allows pushing liabilities from one year into another, you can't simply have a 10-year corporate tax cut that sunsets (the way the Bush tax cuts to incomes were structured), since that'll actually affect tax receipts 15 years out or more.
Now, there are ways of trying to overcome this. Change the 10-year window to a 20-year window. (Suggested, but dropped.) Tell the CBO to use dynamic-scoring instead of static-scoring to estimate budget effects (will likely happen, but insufficient to cover up all the red ink). Make the corporate tax cut very short term (say, 3 years long). But I remember reading a bunch of articles in the spring that basically concluded none of these solutions was actually viable; even a 3- or 5-year long temporary corporate tax cut would have measurable effects outside the budget window. Back then, the plan was to use some mechanism that'd raise a ton of revenue in the outlying years to balance things out, e.g., Ryan's Border Adjustment Tax. But now that that proposal is dead, has anybody heard how they intend to square this circle?
If they're not careful, the Senate parliamentarian will just throw everything out as incompatible with the reconciliation process. I guess they can always overrule the parliamentarian or eliminate the filibuster, but McConnell seems very loath to do that, out of recognition that the filibuster will be the only defense the right will have the next time there's a reascendent left.
I don't know why you say he seems loath to do that. He was absolutely ready to do that for reconciliation this year. All of the healthcare stuff proposed had been ruled to be in violation of reconciliation. They just didn't have the requisite 50 votes to get far enough to need to throw the parliamentarian out.
Except reconciliation can only be one thing, which makes it far easier to steer it in a direction you want, even if you aren't guaranteed getting it passed. I doubt enough Republicans go for this. It's not only given up their power, but actually have to step in and rebuke the most stupid shit their caucus puts forward, if they realize that shit will get their party destroyed.
Is there anything stopping them from, say, cutting Maine taxpayers a better deal than everyone else to try and buy Collins's vote? That's basically what they tried for healthcare in the end.
Strictly speaking? As far as my googles tell me, yes, this can be done. It's never been done, though, and it's liable to backfire because come election it won't be Maine paying less, it'll be everyone else paying more.
I also imagine that is liable to piss off a ton of voters in how obvious a bribe it would be; especially, since this would result in a libby-lib state like Maine paying less, while everyone else pays more.
I still don't entirely understand how the GOP thinks they're going to push a large deficit-increasing corporate tax cut through reconciliation.
A 10 year sunset period, where it doesn't actually get counted on the budget, like the Bush tax cuts. And hopefully the dems retake the seats, and get hammered when they actually count it
+1
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
I still don't entirely understand how the GOP thinks they're going to push a large deficit-increasing corporate tax cut through reconciliation.
A 10 year sunset period, where it doesn't actually get counted on the budget, like the Bush tax cuts. And hopefully the dems retake the seats, and get hammered when they actually count it
The rest of my post was important. Corporate tax cuts that sunset after 10 years will still be counted on the outlying years' budgets. With individual income tax, it's very hard to push tax liabilities around from one year to another. Corporate tax law allows that all over the place: expenses in year 1 can be counted against profits in year 4, and so forth.
Just six months ago, the Joint Committee on Taxation reported thateven a 3-year temporary corporate tax cut would generate deficits outside the 10-year window. Temporary corporate tax cuts aren't possible in reconciliation unless they raise a lot of revenue somewhere else.
I guess, in retrospect, that's why they're proposing eliminating the state & local tax deduction -- that and the home mortgage deduction are the only pools of money even close to large enough to cover a corporate tax cut.
I still don't entirely understand how the GOP thinks they're going to push a large deficit-increasing corporate tax cut through reconciliation.
A 10 year sunset period, where it doesn't actually get counted on the budget, like the Bush tax cuts. And hopefully the dems retake the seats, and get hammered when they actually count it
The rest of my post was important. Corporate tax cuts that sunset after 10 years will still be counted on the outlying years' budgets. With individual income tax, it's very hard to push tax liabilities around from one year to another. Corporate tax law allows that all over the place: expenses in year 1 can be counted against profits in year 4, and so forth.
Just six months ago, the Joint Committee on Taxation reported thateven a 3-year temporary corporate tax cut would generate deficits outside the 10-year window. Temporary corporate tax cuts aren't possible in reconciliation unless they raise a lot of revenue somewhere else.
I guess, in retrospect, that's why they're proposing eliminating the state & local tax deduction -- that and the home mortgage deduction are the only pools of money even close to large enough to cover a corporate tax cut.
Couldn't they change the rules governing the CBO and force them to adopt Paul Ryan's magic asterisk? I feel like they have threatened to do that before.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Id be honestly surprised if the deficit hawks actually continue to be deficit hawks to the point where they'll hold up the bill. Conservatives are generally only concerned about the deficit when the other guys are in power (see: the entire GWB administration)
I 100% think there are Republicans that will vote against tax cuts for the rich and rate hikes for the poor simply because they are unwilling to give up their seats for a greater Republican goal.
Id be honestly surprised if the deficit hawks actually continue to be deficit hawks to the point where they'll hold up the bill. Conservatives are generally only concerned about the deficit when the other guys are in power (see: the entire GWB administration)
I 100% think there are Republicans that will vote against tax cuts for the rich and rate hikes for the poor simply because they are unwilling to give up their seats for a greater Republican goal.
Why would they be giving up their seats? Isn't the climate right now that if you don't go with what the leaders want, they will work to oust you?
Id be honestly surprised if the deficit hawks actually continue to be deficit hawks to the point where they'll hold up the bill. Conservatives are generally only concerned about the deficit when the other guys are in power (see: the entire GWB administration)
I 100% think there are Republicans that will vote against tax cuts for the rich and rate hikes for the poor simply because they are unwilling to give up their seats for a greater Republican goal.
When have Republican voters EVER been vocally opposed to tax cuts for the rich, regardless of whether it would actually be bad for them or not?
I still don't entirely understand how the GOP thinks they're going to push a large deficit-increasing corporate tax cut through reconciliation.
A 10 year sunset period, where it doesn't actually get counted on the budget, like the Bush tax cuts. And hopefully the dems retake the seats, and get hammered when they actually count it
The rest of my post was important. Corporate tax cuts that sunset after 10 years will still be counted on the outlying years' budgets. With individual income tax, it's very hard to push tax liabilities around from one year to another. Corporate tax law allows that all over the place: expenses in year 1 can be counted against profits in year 4, and so forth.
Just six months ago, the Joint Committee on Taxation reported thateven a 3-year temporary corporate tax cut would generate deficits outside the 10-year window. Temporary corporate tax cuts aren't possible in reconciliation unless they raise a lot of revenue somewhere else.
I guess, in retrospect, that's why they're proposing eliminating the state & local tax deduction -- that and the home mortgage deduction are the only pools of money even close to large enough to cover a corporate tax cut.
Couldn't they change the rules governing the CBO and force them to adopt Paul Ryan's magic asterisk? I feel like they have threatened to do that before.
I don't know if the CBO is a "rule" (and as such subject to the whims of 50% plus one and/or the Vice President), or has their methods defined by statute.
Is there anything stopping them from, say, cutting Maine taxpayers a better deal than everyone else to try and buy Collins's vote? That's basically what they tried for healthcare in the end.
Strictly speaking? As far as my googles tell me, yes, this can be done. It's never been done, though, and it's liable to backfire because come election it won't be Maine paying less, it'll be everyone else paying more.
The problem would be finding some hook that lets them specifically target Maine (or whatever state). Health care was relatively easy to do that with since you could throw funds at red state concerns and target Alaska specifically by (very roughly) having elements that only came into pay when health care costs were over X. I think it'd be a lot tougher to come up with a tax bill that manages to hook up red states while not providing the same benefit to blue states. I think you could do it if the state in question modified its tax code to something weird and stupid, and then the federal system could be tweaked to reward exactly that (say Maine gets rid of the income tax, but charges a flat $10k a year for vehicle registration, so the federal tax could be modified to disallow SALT deductions, but let you deduct vehicle registration fees), but that's not likely to happen in the next year.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
So apparently the GOP is toying around with the idea of continuing to allow businesses to claim SALT but not anyone else. Can I just say fuck these rat fuckers.
Senate Approves Budget that will add 1.5 trillion TRILLION dollars to the deficit over the next ten years.
" Instead, they have abandoned longstanding party orthodoxy of deficit reduction and are seeking a political win after months of frustration on Capitol Hill."
I feel at at point we'll need to have an amendment that can be summed up as "Fuck you GOP, no more pulling fantasy numbers out your fucking asses and then blaming everyone else when your shit budget fucks everything up." Where the rules for doing budget math are set in stone and we have a set number on how much revenue can be expect from certain things. Ideally we settle for a conservative figure.
Upside is the GOP can only get away with this shit for so many cycles. Eventually, everyone stuck on the idea of "I must vote team republican because I'm dolt incapable of questioning the good o'l boys that go into power. Go Team Republican!" become a no factor because so few new ones are created, while the old one turn to dust. I mean we have compelling evidence that the meltdowns pretty much set people to "fuck the GOP! Fuck them them and the donor masters for fucking up the economy and thus fucking up the life!"
I guess the real question is what do we get when they reconcile these bills. Not done buy a long shot. The house is full of plenty of really craven fuckers that might not care for the Senate plan because it doesn't cut what they want to cut. The Senate wants a budget that is unlikely to get any democratic votes. So who caves in and how badly do we get fucked when it happens or will we get the shocking government shutdown despite one party controlling everything.
I'm sure the cycle will continue and the next president that's a Democrats will have to come in and fix it and get blamed for the deficits
Again
I know people who fully blame Obama for the 2008/2009 debt crisis and for keeping (more) banks and auto makers from failing.
Also WTF is this bullshit?
“Passing this budget is critical to getting tax reform done, so we can strengthen our economy after years of stagnation under the previous administration,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
Hey asshole. How many years, now, have we lived with CRs? You don't get to pat yourself on the back until we get a budget passed in time to spend the money. You're no better than the past 10 fucking Congresses, who couldn't get their shit together.
+3
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Senate Approves Budget that will add 1.5 trillion TRILLION dollars to the deficit over the next ten years.
" Instead, they have abandoned longstanding party orthodoxy of deficit reduction and are seeking a political win after months of frustration on Capitol Hill."
*looks at Reagan budgets*
*looks at Bush budgets*
Yeah about that..
Long standing 40 years ago. Nixon and Ford derided supply side theories and Bush-41 called it "voodoo economics" in 1980 when running against Reagan.
This would be a massive tax increase for heavy savers.
Other news is that they are looking to publish a real bill in mid-November.
The party that hates retirement benefits (medicare and social security), wants to make it harder to be responsible and save for retirement... sounds about right.
This would be a massive tax increase for heavy savers.
Other news is that they are looking to publish a real bill in mid-November.
That sounds like little else than a massive windfall for companies (and subsequently the investors/shareholders)
Any tax on capital (which this would effectively be) is going to hurt shareholders. Stocks would take a pretty big one-time hit if this policy change happened.
Honestly, in a vacuum, this is probably a good idea if phased in slowly, as capital is currently undertaxed IMO, but of course this is the least progressive way to achieve this goal as the people hurt most by it on the investor side are people who currently max out their 401(k) contributions but don't have any other capital investment. A more reasonable way to get more revenue from capital gains would be to tax capital gains at a higher rate but keep the retirement savings deductions, but obviously that would disproportionately affect wealthy investors so it's a non-starter.
Another proposal that hurts their high income earning voting block (100k+) the most.
What the fuck are they doing
Desperately trying to find some way to squeeze money out of this thing so their tax and budget proposals can get past their crazier House members is my bet.
The whole issue they have is there's nowhere to make up the huge hole they are trying to open in the budget.
What could well happen is these divisions stop "Tax Reform" from being anything but the Bush Tax Cuts Mk 2.
So still bad but not near as bad as it could be.
Actual Tax Reform took Reagan 6 years, and he had a landslide mandate in between. We were never going to get that. It was always going to be Bush Tax Cuts 2: Accounting Boogaloo.
Yup pretty much actual tax reform is hard as hell and to attempt to cram it in via reconciliation was never very likely. They want to slap this out and get it done before next year the only way that happens is Bush Tax cuts mk2.
Posts
No. They can do one a (financial) year. 2017's was healthcare. 2018's is taxes.
Believe it or not the GOP is actually more divided on taxes than healthcare. With ACA repeal, you have the asshole faction that wanted to cut everything and gave no shits about the harm vs the other side that wanted to cut what they could without royally pissing off their voters to the point that they get sent home. With tax reform the splits are
1. Deficit hawks that insist that the deficit stays the same or shrinks vs the faction that views the deficit as a non-issue regardless of who controls what and the bullshit faction that only cares about the deficit when they can use it as an excuse to try and undermine democrats. This is the division that could kill anything being done. As has been pointed out the GOP has likely cut everything that could be cut, plus stuff that probably shouldn't have been cut, but didn't elicit a massive public outcry. It's looking like trying to make this neutral or less will royally fuck over those that aren't rich. (also to be blunt, we don't need more tax cuts, we need to rich to pay their fair share and give everyone a raise instead of keeping the entirety of the wealth gains to themselves aka the rich need to stop being a bunch of cheap assholes.
2.Temp cuts vs permanent. Again they probably don't have anything that could be cut to make this work. Also it sounds like a bunch of industries don't want temp tax cuts because they can't game them as well as permanent tax cuts.
3. If cuts are made, who gets them and who gets fucked to make them happen. The local and state deductions have been the big one we've talked about (I've learned that SALT is used to describe them). Right now there are a number of republicans that have realized that this could cost them re-election because killing SALT means they're raising taxes on their voters and they need people outside of their base to win. These are the kind of people less likely to believe that the GOP wouldn't be at fault for their federal taxes going up, after passing tax reform that makes their federal taxes go up (I'm sure some of their base will make the connection as well, but I'll concede they have a decent chunk of ill-informed base members that lack the critical thinking to make the connection on their own and will easily get suckered by the propaganda). Also it seems that numbers increasingly point to the rest of this stuff fucking over non-wealthy people. Finally, there seems to be some in the GOP that still remember that you have to have money on hand to pay for all this shit that US citizens want and the ones that will be the least happy about losing their shit have way more votes than the wealthy d-bags that insist taxes are still too high even though they can blows millions on stupid shit (like idiot vanity candidates in last years Republican Presidential Primary).
Also Trump being Trump might have just made this harder to pull off. I mentioned that Corker could prove to be a wild card since he is retiring. Since Corker doesn't have to give anymore shits about his donors or the most rabid among his base, he could either do what he wants to do, what's best for the party, what's best for Trump or what's best for the nation. Right now this is doesn't look like it'll end way for the nation or really the GOP's long term prospects. Plus, Trump decided to piss in Corker's cheerios and start a feud with him. Right now Corker is opposed to this plan.
Really getting on Corker's bad side and pushing for something that isn't achievable was really fucking stupid. GOP could only afford two defections. I think Collins comes against this because it would hose her prospects politically regardless of whether she runs for Governor of Maine or runs for re-election in the Senate. McCain and Murkowski are question marks. I'm leaning toward McCain likely put some breaks on some of these ideas, even if this wasn't likely his last term, I kind of see him being offended by some of these given that he did push for campaign finance reform. Rand says no for right now, probably could be bribed, but the question then becomes if he can be bribed without losing others. Both Lee and Rubio are saying no for right now as well, not sure how serious they are about trying to not fuck the middle class. Finally, Cochran is out of the Senate for medical stuff, so it's not exactly clear if they could get him when they need to (sure claims are they can, but we'll see how reality pans out). Based on all that, I think we're a ways from seeing that is ready for a vote in the Senate, let along reconciliation between the House and Senate (Neither chamber seems to be on the same page).
Always worth point out if they go past Dec 12th, that opens the way for Alabama to to throw a monkey wrench into the works. If Moore wins, that GOPe doesn't retain the seat and we'll likely have to deal with one more alt-right republican in their caucus that pushes for an untenable position on tax reform. If Moore loses, the GOP will have one less vote to work with.
Expect the the GOP to pull out all the stops to try and desperately get something passed and then if they do get something, try to sell it being 1000 times grander than it actually is. The GOP is desperate for a major win that they can claim shows they deserved to have control of the Senate, House and White House and that they deserved their donor's money. That's the say be fearful that the GOP does something really fucking dumb because they might focus too much on getting their win; however, that could also result in them falling short if 3 or more of their members don't give a shit about what the donor class feels they are entitled too. I'm also moving to a position where I don't think the GOP wins this. Anything that would make their top dollar donors happy probably costs them dearly and their is nothing that would stop a coalition of democrats and sane republicans re-instating repealed taxes on the rich and adding new ones. Granted if they don't deliver something for their donors, their donors might see to it that they don't win their next election by funding someone else.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
So still bad but not near as bad as it could be.
Actual Tax Reform took Reagan 6 years, and he had a landslide mandate in between. We were never going to get that. It was always going to be Bush Tax Cuts 2: Accounting Boogaloo.
Pre-2017: The wealthy will not receive tax cuts.
Administration in power: It's a goal, not a commitment.
Now: It's very hard not to give the rich tax cuts.
Reconciliation requires the bill to be deficit neutral outside the 10-year budgeting window. But because of the way that corporate tax law allows pushing liabilities from one year into another, you can't simply have a 10-year corporate tax cut that sunsets (the way the Bush tax cuts to incomes were structured), since that'll actually affect tax receipts 15 years out or more.
Now, there are ways of trying to overcome this. Change the 10-year window to a 20-year window. (Suggested, but dropped.) Tell the CBO to use dynamic-scoring instead of static-scoring to estimate budget effects (will likely happen, but insufficient to cover up all the red ink). Make the corporate tax cut very short term (say, 3 years long). But I remember reading a bunch of articles in the spring that basically concluded none of these solutions was actually viable; even a 3- or 5-year long temporary corporate tax cut would have measurable effects outside the budget window. Back then, the plan was to use some mechanism that'd raise a ton of revenue in the outlying years to balance things out, e.g., Ryan's Border Adjustment Tax. But now that that proposal is dead, has anybody heard how they intend to square this circle?
If they're not careful, the Senate parliamentarian will just throw everything out as incompatible with the reconciliation process. I guess they can always overrule the parliamentarian or eliminate the filibuster, but McConnell seems very loath to do that, out of recognition that the filibuster will be the only defense the right will have the next time there's a reascendent left.
I don't know why you say he seems loath to do that. He was absolutely ready to do that for reconciliation this year. All of the healthcare stuff proposed had been ruled to be in violation of reconciliation. They just didn't have the requisite 50 votes to get far enough to need to throw the parliamentarian out.
I would have thought federal taxes apply to everyone the same. Of course, I would have thought the same about federal health care regulations...
Strictly speaking? As far as my googles tell me, yes, this can be done. It's never been done, though, and it's liable to backfire because come election it won't be Maine paying less, it'll be everyone else paying more.
Except reconciliation can only be one thing, which makes it far easier to steer it in a direction you want, even if you aren't guaranteed getting it passed. I doubt enough Republicans go for this. It's not only given up their power, but actually have to step in and rebuke the most stupid shit their caucus puts forward, if they realize that shit will get their party destroyed.
I also imagine that is liable to piss off a ton of voters in how obvious a bribe it would be; especially, since this would result in a libby-lib state like Maine paying less, while everyone else pays more.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
The rest of my post was important. Corporate tax cuts that sunset after 10 years will still be counted on the outlying years' budgets. With individual income tax, it's very hard to push tax liabilities around from one year to another. Corporate tax law allows that all over the place: expenses in year 1 can be counted against profits in year 4, and so forth.
Just six months ago, the Joint Committee on Taxation reported that even a 3-year temporary corporate tax cut would generate deficits outside the 10-year window. Temporary corporate tax cuts aren't possible in reconciliation unless they raise a lot of revenue somewhere else.
I guess, in retrospect, that's why they're proposing eliminating the state & local tax deduction -- that and the home mortgage deduction are the only pools of money even close to large enough to cover a corporate tax cut.
Couldn't they change the rules governing the CBO and force them to adopt Paul Ryan's magic asterisk? I feel like they have threatened to do that before.
I 100% think there are Republicans that will vote against tax cuts for the rich and rate hikes for the poor simply because they are unwilling to give up their seats for a greater Republican goal.
Why would they be giving up their seats? Isn't the climate right now that if you don't go with what the leaders want, they will work to oust you?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
When have Republican voters EVER been vocally opposed to tax cuts for the rich, regardless of whether it would actually be bad for them or not?
I'm really asking, because I can't think of any
I don't know if the CBO is a "rule" (and as such subject to the whims of 50% plus one and/or the Vice President), or has their methods defined by statute.
It's actually very easy. Just....do nothing. And you're already so good at doing nothing!
The problem would be finding some hook that lets them specifically target Maine (or whatever state). Health care was relatively easy to do that with since you could throw funds at red state concerns and target Alaska specifically by (very roughly) having elements that only came into pay when health care costs were over X. I think it'd be a lot tougher to come up with a tax bill that manages to hook up red states while not providing the same benefit to blue states. I think you could do it if the state in question modified its tax code to something weird and stupid, and then the federal system could be tweaked to reward exactly that (say Maine gets rid of the income tax, but charges a flat $10k a year for vehicle registration, so the federal tax could be modified to disallow SALT deductions, but let you deduct vehicle registration fees), but that's not likely to happen in the next year.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Senate Approves Budget that will add 1.5 trillion TRILLION dollars to the deficit over the next ten years.
" Instead, they have abandoned longstanding party orthodoxy of deficit reduction and are seeking a political win after months of frustration on Capitol Hill."
*looks at Reagan budgets*
*looks at Bush budgets*
Yeah about that..
Again
Upside is the GOP can only get away with this shit for so many cycles. Eventually, everyone stuck on the idea of "I must vote team republican because I'm dolt incapable of questioning the good o'l boys that go into power. Go Team Republican!" become a no factor because so few new ones are created, while the old one turn to dust. I mean we have compelling evidence that the meltdowns pretty much set people to "fuck the GOP! Fuck them them and the donor masters for fucking up the economy and thus fucking up the life!"
I guess the real question is what do we get when they reconcile these bills. Not done buy a long shot. The house is full of plenty of really craven fuckers that might not care for the Senate plan because it doesn't cut what they want to cut. The Senate wants a budget that is unlikely to get any democratic votes. So who caves in and how badly do we get fucked when it happens or will we get the shocking government shutdown despite one party controlling everything.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I know people who fully blame Obama for the 2008/2009 debt crisis and for keeping (more) banks and auto makers from failing.
Also WTF is this bullshit?
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/356328-senate-narrowly-passes-2018-budget-paving-way-for-tax-reform
Hey asshole. How many years, now, have we lived with CRs? You don't get to pat yourself on the back until we get a budget passed in time to spend the money. You're no better than the past 10 fucking Congresses, who couldn't get their shit together.
Long standing 40 years ago. Nixon and Ford derided supply side theories and Bush-41 called it "voodoo economics" in 1980 when running against Reagan.
They've done it since the '80s. I don't know why it would stop working.
Talk of a $2400 cap on pre-tax 401k contributions
This would be a massive tax increase for heavy savers.
Other news is that they are looking to publish a real bill in mid-November.
What the fuck are they doing
That sounds like little else than a massive windfall for companies (and subsequently the investors/shareholders)
Testing whether heavy doses of sweet, sweet racism can cause their voters to vote for tax raises on themselves if they call them "tax cuts."
The party that hates retirement benefits (medicare and social security), wants to make it harder to be responsible and save for retirement... sounds about right.
Any tax on capital (which this would effectively be) is going to hurt shareholders. Stocks would take a pretty big one-time hit if this policy change happened.
Honestly, in a vacuum, this is probably a good idea if phased in slowly, as capital is currently undertaxed IMO, but of course this is the least progressive way to achieve this goal as the people hurt most by it on the investor side are people who currently max out their 401(k) contributions but don't have any other capital investment. A more reasonable way to get more revenue from capital gains would be to tax capital gains at a higher rate but keep the retirement savings deductions, but obviously that would disproportionately affect wealthy investors so it's a non-starter.
Hmm. "How could we fuck over the middle class specifically the most?"
Lower income folks are usually not saving or barely saving.
Upper income folks are so far past the cap that they don't even really look very hard at their 401k contributions as a major part of their portfolio.
But the average middle class family? Fuck you real good.
Desperately trying to find some way to squeeze money out of this thing so their tax and budget proposals can get past their crazier House members is my bet.
The whole issue they have is there's nowhere to make up the huge hole they are trying to open in the budget.
Yup pretty much actual tax reform is hard as hell and to attempt to cram it in via reconciliation was never very likely. They want to slap this out and get it done before next year the only way that happens is Bush Tax cuts mk2.