A friend of mine who lives in Maine - Pixie, please confirm, deny or clarify - says that part of the problem is that the Dem opposition has been split between several candidates, no one of whom can get a big enough slice of the pie to mount a challenge.
It's true. All of it.
Edit: well, this actually applies when we elect the governor, not so much the senate seats.
Anyways, I wouldn't assume that her popularity survives. Tax bill could be one of many things that brings her down. If this fucks up healthcare for her voters, this could really hammer her chances because it then makes her vote against ACA moot.
I gather Trump's New York buddies are pressuring to get some of the cut deductions back in. Dumbfuck probably doesn't realize that New York state and New York City will make his dumb ass regret SALT being axed. People like their services and I kind of doubt SALT deduction going is going to play out the way the GOP thinks it'll play out. It's going to create a mess, but I'm pretty it's all going to blow back on the GOP; especially, with a decent number of their shitty donors getting fucked by it. Hell, if I were some of these high tax places, I'd probably hike up taxes on the .01% a bit more. I mean if these fuckers were going to move because of taxes, they would have done so, but other things are keeping them in place.
Anyways, I wouldn't assume that her popularity survives. Tax bill could be one of many things that brings her down. If this fucks up healthcare for her voters, this could really hammer her chances because it then makes her vote against ACA moot.
I gather Trump's New York buddies are pressuring to get some of the cut deductions back in. Dumbfuck probably doesn't realize that New York state and New York City will make his dumb ass regret SALT being axed. People like their services and I kind of doubt SALT deduction going is going to play out the way the GOP thinks it'll play out. It's going to create a mess, but I'm pretty it's all going to blow back on the GOP; especially, with a decent number of their shitty donors getting fucked by it. Hell, if I were some of these high tax places, I'd probably hike up taxes on the .01% a bit more. I mean if these fuckers were going to move because of taxes, they would have done so, but other things are keeping them in place.
Raise the taxes on their property, not their income.
WASHINGTON – Some high-income business owners could face marginal tax rates exceeding 100% under the Senate's tax bill, far beyond the listed tax rates in the Republican plan.
That means a business owner's next $100 in earnings, under certain circumstances, would require paying more than $100 in additional federal and state taxes.
The possible marginal tax rate of more than 100% results from the combination of tax policies designed to provide benefits to businesses and families but then deny them to the richest people. As income climbs and those breaks phase out, each dollar of income faces regular tax rates and a hidden marginal rate on top of that, in the form of vanishing tax breaks. That structure, if maintained in a final law, would create some of the disincentives to working and to earning business profits that Republicans have long complained about, while opening lucrative avenues for tax avoidance.
Consider, for example, a married, self-employed New Jersey lawyer with three children and earnings of $615,000. Getting $100 in business income beyond that amount would force the lawyer to pay $105.45 in federal and state taxes, according to calculations by the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation. That is more than double the marginal tax rate that household faces today.
If the New Jersey lawyer's stay-at-home spouse wanted a job, the first $100 of the spouse's wages would require $107.79 in taxes. And the tax rates for similarly situated residents of California and New York City would be even higher, the Tax Foundation found. Analyses by the Tax Policy Center, which is run by a former Obama administration official, find similar results, with federal marginal rates as high as 85%, and those don't include items such as state taxes, self-employment taxes or the phase-out of child tax credits.
How did they manage to mess up a tax cut bill this badly? Or are they secretly socialists?
Reading the article, it's primarily due to two things: phasing out of certain deductions (child tax credit, etc) over certain income (which is how they should operate), and removal of state income tax deduction.
So the correct way to phrase this is "Republicans are introducing double taxation, making it so earning a higher income means you get take home less money."
The related story is that she'd MAYBE CONSIDER changing her vote if things she asked for aren't in it.
She won't, obviously.
The best part is McConnell's letter was purposely written in such a way that it made no actual promises, I imagine Ryan's is the same. Reading between the lines it really seems like she knows those letters aren't worth the paper they're printed on, but it's too politically risky to break ranks and torpedo yet another major republican initiative in Congress.
Reading the article, it's primarily due to two things: phasing out of certain deductions (child tax credit, etc) over certain income (which is how they should operate), and removal of state income tax deduction.
So the correct way to phrase this is "Republicans are introducing double taxation, making it so earning a higher income means you get take home less money."
While I agree with the bold, I wish there was a ramp down (or up) instead of a step. While more a talking point than a huge issue, this is one of those things that consistently derails useful discussions.
Reading the article, it's primarily due to two things: phasing out of certain deductions (child tax credit, etc) over certain income (which is how they should operate), and removal of state income tax deduction.
So the correct way to phrase this is "Republicans are introducing double taxation, making it so earning a higher income means you get take home less money."
While I agree with the bold, I wish there was a ramp down (or up) instead of a step. While more a talking point than a huge issue, this is one of those things that consistently derails useful discussions.
It does ramp down. It's a phase out, not a ledge. Unless you decide to rewrite the tax code in one night by making notes in the margin.
Reading the article, it's primarily due to two things: phasing out of certain deductions (child tax credit, etc) over certain income (which is how they should operate), and removal of state income tax deduction.
So the correct way to phrase this is "Republicans are introducing double taxation, making it so earning a higher income means you get take home less money."
While I agree with the bold, I wish there was a ramp down (or up) instead of a step. While more a talking point than a huge issue, this is one of those things that consistently derails useful discussions.
My understanding is that it is a ramp down, it's just that the ramp down rate combined with certain state and national marginal rates totals up to over 100%. That is, you're e.g. paying 35% federal, 15% state, and ramping 60 cents of benefits per dollar for a total of 110% rate.
The SALT removal is why this is specifically occurring but it could theoretically occur at any point you had a combination of several ramps and high marginal taxes.
I do understand the SALT issue, but I seem to have be very incorrect on the other parts. I had thought child tax credit and similar were step instead of ramp.
Thanks for the correction.
So the more I hear about the Republican tax bill(s), the more awful they seem. In particular the Senate version, of course, which was apparently rewritten about an hour before they passed it. It is the height of lunacy to vote on a bill when you don't even know the contents, yet the Republicans keep doing it. Is it at all possible that they are unable to agree on a bill that both the House and the Senate can pass? I honestly don't know, and it seems really unlikely, but it sure would be nice if they could fail to destroy the economy.
So the more I hear about the Republican tax bill(s), the more awful they seem. In particular the Senate version, of course, which was apparently rewritten about an hour before they passed it. It is the height of lunacy to vote on a bill when you don't even know the contents, yet the Republicans keep doing it. Is it at all possible that they are unable to agree on a bill that both the House and the Senate can pass? I honestly don't know, and it seems really unlikely, but it sure would be nice if they could fail to destroy the economy.
I wouldn't count on it, but I wouldn't bet the farm against it. The longer the process goes, the more time people have to understand what's actually in it, and the more time the Republican Freedumb Caucus get to play spoiler, the more likely it happens. But there's still a better than even chance it passes regardless. Because the Republicans are beholden to their donors, and a failure to have any major legislative accomplishments in an entire year (and unlikely to get another one, with midterms coming up), is at least as disastrous for them as passing something bad.
Ironically, the only thing on the books that COULD pass, and is hopefully a demand from the Democrats, is the one that could hurt them, and that's DACA reform. Wouldn't be an issue if they'd not been so against it, and if they hadn't cultivated racism in their base for so long, and the President hadn't been shown to be actively racist, but that's not tax-reform related.
The issue here is that, unlike healthcare, which at least a handful of Republicans could look at and go "This is going to hurt a lot of people" 'Tax Cuts = Good' is built into the very fabric of the Republican Party. They can squabble on the degree, but ultimately, it's something the entire party wants and that they have over 10 months to pass. In fact I'd say their only real stumbling block is that they got too ridiculously greedy and it's thrown up a temporary roadblock for them. Had the pubs attempted something less heinous; or if they had gone through normal channels, they could have still put out a fairly major tax cut and come off looking like heroes. But they wanted it all and that's harder to get past.
In theory they have 10 months to pass it (actually more like 12ish given the lame duck period), but in practice it gets harder the closer they get to the midterms, and the margins are already pretty tight for them. If it doesn't pass pretty soon I think there's a good chance it won't at all.
Regarding the "going for something less heinous" thing, the far-right members won't let that happen. They have to do horrific things to poor people, or the Rand Pauls and Ted Cruzs and FC geese in the House will torpedo the bill.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
It's not the far-right that is the issue in that department. "Less heinous" in this case is simply a matter of less cuts or less permanent cuts. The bill is almost entirely as bad as it is because it has to be in order to cut taxes that hard and that permanently.
But large permanent tax cuts have to be there because that's what the donors want and ultimately that's the only thing this bill is about.
People been pointing out for ages now that this would be a dead easy win for them if they just went the Bush Tax Cut route. Slash everyone's taxes. Normal people's a tiny bit, the people you are paying off A LOT. Sunset it after 10 years and hope it's too hard to repeal. Shit would sail through Congress. It'd be a staggering disaster, just like the Bush Tax Cuts, but it'd be one of those ones it's super hard to fight against. American's love that shit.
But they can't, because their donors are demanding more. And that more requires heinous and vile things just to bring it under the line they set.
In theory they have 10 months to pass it (actually more like 12ish given the lame duck period), but in practice it gets harder the closer they get to the midterms, and the margins are already pretty tight for them. If it doesn't pass pretty soon I think there's a good chance it won't at all.
Regarding the "going for something less heinous" thing, the far-right members won't let that happen. They have to do horrific things to poor people, or the Rand Pauls and Ted Cruzs and FC geese in the House will torpedo the bill.
It's a Reconciliation Bill, so they have until October to pass it before it expires again.
In theory they have 10 months to pass it (actually more like 12ish given the lame duck period), but in practice it gets harder the closer they get to the midterms, and the margins are already pretty tight for them. If it doesn't pass pretty soon I think there's a good chance it won't at all.
Regarding the "going for something less heinous" thing, the far-right members won't let that happen. They have to do horrific things to poor people, or the Rand Pauls and Ted Cruzs and FC geese in the House will torpedo the bill.
It's a Reconciliation Bill, so they have until October to pass it before it expires again.
Yes but that would be politically dangerous
the GOP delegations in blue states would probably get fucked real hard from the backlash
In theory they have 10 months to pass it (actually more like 12ish given the lame duck period), but in practice it gets harder the closer they get to the midterms, and the margins are already pretty tight for them. If it doesn't pass pretty soon I think there's a good chance it won't at all.
Regarding the "going for something less heinous" thing, the far-right members won't let that happen. They have to do horrific things to poor people, or the Rand Pauls and Ted Cruzs and FC geese in the House will torpedo the bill.
It's a Reconciliation Bill, so they have until October to pass it before it expires again.
Yes but that would be politically dangerous
the GOP delegations in blue states would probably get fucked real hard from the backlash
Most of them weren't looking forward to 2018 already with the way midterms typically go as well as all the Trumpiness.
Still getting a strong vibe from the GOP of stuffing everything they possibly can into a sack to get while the getting is good.
In theory they have 10 months to pass it (actually more like 12ish given the lame duck period), but in practice it gets harder the closer they get to the midterms, and the margins are already pretty tight for them. If it doesn't pass pretty soon I think there's a good chance it won't at all.
Regarding the "going for something less heinous" thing, the far-right members won't let that happen. They have to do horrific things to poor people, or the Rand Pauls and Ted Cruzs and FC geese in the House will torpedo the bill.
It's a Reconciliation Bill, so they have until October to pass it before it expires again.
Yes but that would be politically dangerous
the GOP delegations in blue states would probably get fucked real hard from the backlash
In theory they have 10 months to pass it (actually more like 12ish given the lame duck period), but in practice it gets harder the closer they get to the midterms, and the margins are already pretty tight for them. If it doesn't pass pretty soon I think there's a good chance it won't at all.
Regarding the "going for something less heinous" thing, the far-right members won't let that happen. They have to do horrific things to poor people, or the Rand Pauls and Ted Cruzs and FC geese in the House will torpedo the bill.
It's a Reconciliation Bill, so they have until October to pass it before it expires again.
Yes but that would be politically dangerous
the GOP delegations in blue states would probably get fucked real hard from the backlash
Yes, but they wouldn't have the lame duck.
Lame Duck is irrelevant. Either the Pubs pass this under reconciliation with 50 votes in the Senate; or they have to deal with the filibuster as the Dems ain't letting that shit pass when they're seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. While McConnell could eliminate the filibuster, it'd be an extraordinarily short-sighted move (short-sighted even for these Republicans) since the Dems are only 3 seats away from a majority, and even if the pubs went "No more filibuster! Pass Legislation! Okay filibuster is back!" the precedent will have already been set for getting rid of it when it's inconvenient.
I'm wondering if SALT makes it back in because most of our asshole donor class, is like most of the asshole nobility of old. They don't want to be in the out of the way backwater, which would be the places with lower taxes in modern times. I'm not sure how the math works out, but I wouldn't be surprised if in many cases, SALT removal ends up resulting in them paying higher taxes. I'd also also say, if I was the government of some of those places, I'd take a good look at the wealth spread of these assholes, and figure out how to up taxes so that it primarily hits them because clearly they too much wealth and they are not using that wealth in a way that causes real harm to others (in this case bribing asshole republicans for a tax package that is going to fuck over the nation and everyone that isn't rich).
Since they opted for reconciliation, that creates a decent number of pitfalls for this to fail. If they leave SALT alone, they have to either make cuts elsewhere or hike the new corporate rate above 20%, which Trump seems opposed to. I think there's a 65 percent chance they pass something, and it's going to be shitty, but I feel if this drags on it might self-destruct.
Salt going away is like a missle at middle/upper middle class whites in blue states, aka people who actually vote Republicans into their state house of representatives delegation. It would probably be the most direct individual policy to seat flip you'll observe next year.
Salt going away is like a missle at middle/upper middle class whites in blue states, aka people who actually vote Republicans into their state house of representatives delegation. It would probably be the most direct individual policy to seat flip you'll observe next year.
Anyways, I wouldn't assume that her popularity survives. Tax bill could be one of many things that brings her down. If this fucks up healthcare for her voters, this could really hammer her chances because it then makes her vote against ACA moot.
I gather Trump's New York buddies are pressuring to get some of the cut deductions back in. Dumbfuck probably doesn't realize that New York state and New York City will make his dumb ass regret SALT being axed. People like their services and I kind of doubt SALT deduction going is going to play out the way the GOP thinks it'll play out. It's going to create a mess, but I'm pretty it's all going to blow back on the GOP; especially, with a decent number of their shitty donors getting fucked by it. Hell, if I were some of these high tax places, I'd probably hike up taxes on the .01% a bit more. I mean if these fuckers were going to move because of taxes, they would have done so, but other things are keeping them in place.
Old quote, but you are way overselling the President's interest in this matter, at least from my view. He just wants something substantial/successful that he can figuratively (though knowing this administration so far, also literally) he can hang on the wall and say, "I did that." He's letting/making Congress write the bill. If it shows up on his desk and has the R signatures, he's going to sign it full-stop. It could be all blank pages after the signatures and he'd sign it.
I don't think I'm saying anything new about the situation either.
Anyways, I wouldn't assume that her popularity survives. Tax bill could be one of many things that brings her down. If this fucks up healthcare for her voters, this could really hammer her chances because it then makes her vote against ACA moot.
I gather Trump's New York buddies are pressuring to get some of the cut deductions back in. Dumbfuck probably doesn't realize that New York state and New York City will make his dumb ass regret SALT being axed. People like their services and I kind of doubt SALT deduction going is going to play out the way the GOP thinks it'll play out. It's going to create a mess, but I'm pretty it's all going to blow back on the GOP; especially, with a decent number of their shitty donors getting fucked by it. Hell, if I were some of these high tax places, I'd probably hike up taxes on the .01% a bit more. I mean if these fuckers were going to move because of taxes, they would have done so, but other things are keeping them in place.
Old quote, but you are way overselling the President's interest in this matter, at least from my view. He just wants something substantial/successful that he can figuratively (though knowing this administration so far, also literally) can hang on the wall and say, "I did that." He's letting/making Congress write the bill. If it shows up on his desk and has the R signatures, he's going to sign it full-stop. It could be all blank pages after the signatures and he'd sign it.
I don't think I'm saying anything new about the situation either.
The president is as desperate as any other elderly rich idiot to get estate taxes cut so that his incompetent children can continue to lord it over the rest of us.
It's why I think the odds that something passes are higher than the odds that something doesn't pass. They might sell Trump on the idea that a 25% corp rate is better than nothing. On the hand, we're getting into Trump's personal interests and delusional, so the chances are zero that he doesn't torpedo the thing because he feels the deal isn't worth his while and mistakenly believes he can get better. Or the buffoon ends up believing that McConnell can bullshit them out of the rules for dealing with vetoes.
Trump 20% redline is bullshit anyhow. He already gave in on it with (I forgot if it was the House bill or Senate bill) 22%, so I’m pretty sure he’d give in to more.
Always remember that Trump is a coward. He’ll bluster about not signing it, but won’t actually follow through.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Trump will never not sign something they give to him
he's full of crap everyone knows it
If it were anything else, I'd agree to this, but we're dealing with something that could make Trump a ton of money. So I'd have to say it isn't zero. This is probably the first thing in front of Trump, legislatively that he gives the slightest fuck about.
It’s not just that their donors are demanding more so they can’t just bush tax cut their way to victory, it’s that the Republicans are terrified of their future.
These tax cuts have been engineered to attack and cripple democrats.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
It’s not just that their donors are demanding more so they can’t just bush tax cut their way to victory, it’s that the Republicans are terrified of their future.
These tax cuts have been engineered to attack and cripple democrats.
Attacking and crippling Democrats and modern Democratic constituents is literally the only plank of the current national Republican ideological platform. It's all their party exists to do, anymore.
It’s not just that their donors are demanding more so they can’t just bush tax cut their way to victory, it’s that the Republicans are terrified of their future.
These tax cuts have been engineered to attack and cripple democrats.
Attacking and crippling Democrats and modern Democratic constituents is literally the only plank of the current national Republican ideological platform. It's all their party exists to do, anymore.
In fairness and on-topic:
Well, that and continuing the transfer of wealth to the top of the pyramid.
Posts
It's true. All of it.
Edit: well, this actually applies when we elect the governor, not so much the senate seats.
("we are struggling together!")
Anyways, I wouldn't assume that her popularity survives. Tax bill could be one of many things that brings her down. If this fucks up healthcare for her voters, this could really hammer her chances because it then makes her vote against ACA moot.
I gather Trump's New York buddies are pressuring to get some of the cut deductions back in. Dumbfuck probably doesn't realize that New York state and New York City will make his dumb ass regret SALT being axed. People like their services and I kind of doubt SALT deduction going is going to play out the way the GOP thinks it'll play out. It's going to create a mess, but I'm pretty it's all going to blow back on the GOP; especially, with a decent number of their shitty donors getting fucked by it. Hell, if I were some of these high tax places, I'd probably hike up taxes on the .01% a bit more. I mean if these fuckers were going to move because of taxes, they would have done so, but other things are keeping them in place.
Raise the taxes on their property, not their income.
E: Damn you auto-correct, I know what I meant.
So the correct way to phrase this is "Republicans are introducing double taxation, making it so earning a higher income means you get take home less money."
The best part is McConnell's letter was purposely written in such a way that it made no actual promises, I imagine Ryan's is the same. Reading between the lines it really seems like she knows those letters aren't worth the paper they're printed on, but it's too politically risky to break ranks and torpedo yet another major republican initiative in Congress.
Bold move cotton.
While I agree with the bold, I wish there was a ramp down (or up) instead of a step. While more a talking point than a huge issue, this is one of those things that consistently derails useful discussions.
It does ramp down. It's a phase out, not a ledge. Unless you decide to rewrite the tax code in one night by making notes in the margin.
My understanding is that it is a ramp down, it's just that the ramp down rate combined with certain state and national marginal rates totals up to over 100%. That is, you're e.g. paying 35% federal, 15% state, and ramping 60 cents of benefits per dollar for a total of 110% rate.
The SALT removal is why this is specifically occurring but it could theoretically occur at any point you had a combination of several ramps and high marginal taxes.
Thanks for the correction.
Ironically, the only thing on the books that COULD pass, and is hopefully a demand from the Democrats, is the one that could hurt them, and that's DACA reform. Wouldn't be an issue if they'd not been so against it, and if they hadn't cultivated racism in their base for so long, and the President hadn't been shown to be actively racist, but that's not tax-reform related.
Regarding the "going for something less heinous" thing, the far-right members won't let that happen. They have to do horrific things to poor people, or the Rand Pauls and Ted Cruzs and FC geese in the House will torpedo the bill.
But large permanent tax cuts have to be there because that's what the donors want and ultimately that's the only thing this bill is about.
People been pointing out for ages now that this would be a dead easy win for them if they just went the Bush Tax Cut route. Slash everyone's taxes. Normal people's a tiny bit, the people you are paying off A LOT. Sunset it after 10 years and hope it's too hard to repeal. Shit would sail through Congress. It'd be a staggering disaster, just like the Bush Tax Cuts, but it'd be one of those ones it's super hard to fight against. American's love that shit.
But they can't, because their donors are demanding more. And that more requires heinous and vile things just to bring it under the line they set.
It's a Reconciliation Bill, so they have until October to pass it before it expires again.
Yes but that would be politically dangerous
the GOP delegations in blue states would probably get fucked real hard from the backlash
Most of them weren't looking forward to 2018 already with the way midterms typically go as well as all the Trumpiness.
Still getting a strong vibe from the GOP of stuffing everything they possibly can into a sack to get while the getting is good.
Yes, but they wouldn't have the lame duck.
Lame Duck is irrelevant. Either the Pubs pass this under reconciliation with 50 votes in the Senate; or they have to deal with the filibuster as the Dems ain't letting that shit pass when they're seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. While McConnell could eliminate the filibuster, it'd be an extraordinarily short-sighted move (short-sighted even for these Republicans) since the Dems are only 3 seats away from a majority, and even if the pubs went "No more filibuster! Pass Legislation! Okay filibuster is back!" the precedent will have already been set for getting rid of it when it's inconvenient.
Since they opted for reconciliation, that creates a decent number of pitfalls for this to fail. If they leave SALT alone, they have to either make cuts elsewhere or hike the new corporate rate above 20%, which Trump seems opposed to. I think there's a 65 percent chance they pass something, and it's going to be shitty, but I feel if this drags on it might self-destruct.
See also: every Jersey Republican
Old quote, but you are way overselling the President's interest in this matter, at least from my view. He just wants something substantial/successful that he can figuratively (though knowing this administration so far, also literally) he can hang on the wall and say, "I did that." He's letting/making Congress write the bill. If it shows up on his desk and has the R signatures, he's going to sign it full-stop. It could be all blank pages after the signatures and he'd sign it.
I don't think I'm saying anything new about the situation either.
The president is as desperate as any other elderly rich idiot to get estate taxes cut so that his incompetent children can continue to lord it over the rest of us.
Always remember that Trump is a coward. He’ll bluster about not signing it, but won’t actually follow through.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
he's full of crap everyone knows it
Yeah, but the reason we 'have to' get rid of SALT is to gather enough dollars so that Trump and Co doesn't have to pay the estate tax.
The 'cost' of the bill is like 60% corporate tax cuts and 20% each tax cuts for the ultra rich and estate tax cuts.
If it were anything else, I'd agree to this, but we're dealing with something that could make Trump a ton of money. So I'd have to say it isn't zero. This is probably the first thing in front of Trump, legislatively that he gives the slightest fuck about.
These tax cuts have been engineered to attack and cripple democrats.
Attacking and crippling Democrats and modern Democratic constituents is literally the only plank of the current national Republican ideological platform. It's all their party exists to do, anymore.
In fairness and on-topic:
Well, that and continuing the transfer of wealth to the top of the pyramid.