Can someone summarize what the carried interest loophole is?
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Can someone summarize what the carried interest loophole is?
Short version: if you manage an investment fund, rather than getting a salary on which you pay ordinary income taxes, you can make your sole compensation be a portion of the fund's investment returns, upon which you only pay capital gains taxes. So instead of paying the 37% top marginal rate on wage income, you pay the 15% on investment income.
Can someone summarize what the carried interest loophole is?
Short version: if you manage an investment fund, rather than getting a salary on which you pay ordinary income taxes, you can make your sole compensation be a portion of the fund's investment returns, upon which you only pay capital gains taxes. So instead of paying the 37% top marginal rate on wage income, you pay the 15% on investment income.
Obviously we should get rid of that, but I'm curious: doesn't that imply that some years your compensation will be $0?
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
Man, they're going to work through a weekend in August to pass this thing. Bizarre.
Wonder if the House comes back before September to pass the final version.
In this congress, once you've got a deal and 50 healthy senators, you vote on it. Glad to see Schumer understands the stakes and is trying to prevent a Ted Kennedy-ACA situation.
Hedgethorn on
+11
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Can someone summarize what the carried interest loophole is?
Short version: if you manage an investment fund, rather than getting a salary on which you pay ordinary income taxes, you can make your sole compensation be a portion of the fund's investment returns, upon which you only pay capital gains taxes. So instead of paying the 37% top marginal rate on wage income, you pay the 15% on investment income.
Obviously we should get rid of that, but I'm curious: doesn't that imply that some years your compensation will be $0?
Only if you're so incompetent that you get fired anyway
Can someone summarize what the carried interest loophole is?
Short version: if you manage an investment fund, rather than getting a salary on which you pay ordinary income taxes, you can make your sole compensation be a portion of the fund's investment returns, upon which you only pay capital gains taxes. So instead of paying the 37% top marginal rate on wage income, you pay the 15% on investment income.
Obviously we should get rid of that, but I'm curious: doesn't that imply that some years your compensation will be $0?
Yes, but that could be for a variety of factors from incompetence as mentioned to intentional tax harvesting (like advisors are doing this year, I think)
Also for what it’s worth a lot of small business owners live off their biz cash flow and try to shoot for $0 or less income every year….
….and then get super shitty with my wife when they don’t have qualifying income for their mortgage application (she’s a mortgage loan officer)
Captain Inertia on
+32
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I almost feel like this was orchestrated.
They left the thing in the bill that Sinema would assuredly balk at so she could have a thing to remove, which was conveniently replaced with something else good that mostly recovered the difference, but allowed her to save face with her donor class.
They did her a solid so that all the good stuff could get across the line with her support.
I still hope she is primaried out of her seat in a couple years, but I am glad they did this dance. It is going to put a lot of good things into motion.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+20
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Also for what it’s worth a lot of small business owners live off their biz cash flow and try to shoot for $0 or less income every year….
….and then get super shitty with my wife when they don’t have qualifying income for their mortgage application (she’s a mortgage loan officer)
Getting a car loan was a chore when I was a 1099. For a mortgage, it was a pain in the ass with easily verifiable income from 2 sources. I don’t even know what that would look like if I was a 1099.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Can someone summarize what the carried interest loophole is?
Short version: if you manage an investment fund, rather than getting a salary on which you pay ordinary income taxes, you can make your sole compensation be a portion of the fund's investment returns, upon which you only pay capital gains taxes. So instead of paying the 37% top marginal rate on wage income, you pay the 15% on investment income.
Obviously we should get rid of that, but I'm curious: doesn't that imply that some years your compensation will be $0?
Yeah, if everything you got was based on the fund's performance you'd be getting nuttin. That's not usually the case though. The thing for hedge funds back in the day was two and twenty. So the fund got 2% of assets under management and 20% of the returns. This is obviously not a great deal for the customer unless the fund was performing like a boss. The other thing about that sort of compensation profile is that it provides a strong incentive for the hedge fund to close it's doors and do a little reorg and rebranding if they have a negative year. That resets the baseline for the 20%.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Having 49 Democrats agree to kill carried interest is pretty remarkable. It would suggest that the next time they have a real governing majority it's gone. Which, I honestly would never have thought possible given the sheer amount of money Wall Street would throw at keeping it.
I disagree. A bill with only 49 votes fails just as much as a bill with 0 votes. If you know the vote will fail and a yes will look good with your voting base, you vote yes on the bill because there will be no consequences.
Can someone summarize what the carried interest loophole is?
Short version: if you manage an investment fund, rather than getting a salary on which you pay ordinary income taxes, you can make your sole compensation be a portion of the fund's investment returns, upon which you only pay capital gains taxes. So instead of paying the 37% top marginal rate on wage income, you pay the 15% on investment income.
Obviously we should get rid of that, but I'm curious: doesn't that imply that some years your compensation will be $0?
If you're rich enough that the carried interest loophole / capital gains tax has a significant impact on your income, you can afford to wait a year or even several before needing said income.
They left the thing in the bill that Sinema would assuredly balk at so she could have a thing to remove, which was conveniently replaced with something else good that mostly recovered the difference, but allowed her to save face with her donor class.
They did her a solid so that all the good stuff could get across the line with her support.
I still hope she is primaried out of her seat in a couple years, but I am glad they did this dance. It is going to put a lot of good things into motion.
The only other thing she wanted was drought relief for the SW which is actually a good thing to ask for.
I'm still kind of disbelief at all of the great things that made it into this bill and are finally going to get passed.
They left the thing in the bill that Sinema would assuredly balk at so she could have a thing to remove, which was conveniently replaced with something else good that mostly recovered the difference, but allowed her to save face with her donor class.
They did her a solid so that all the good stuff could get across the line with her support.
I still hope she is primaried out of her seat in a couple years, but I am glad they did this dance. It is going to put a lot of good things into motion.
The only other thing she wanted was drought relief for the SW which is actually a good thing to ask for.
I'm still kind of disbelief at all of the great things that made it into this bill and are finally going to get passed.
Kind of wild how bad the status quo is that something still so wildly inadequate and not remotely radical is also simultaneously a legit huge legislative accomplishment that will do a lot of good
It's only "wildly inadequate" if you compare it to some magical fantasy bill you dreamed up that has no chance in actual reality. This is one of if not the largest investment in green energy ever and we were able to pull it off with Manchin and Sinema being the deciding factors here. It's a huge win and shouldn't be treated as anything else.
Viskod on
+17
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
It's only "wildly inadequate" if you compare it to some magical fantasy bill you dreamed up that has no chance in actual reality. This is one of if not the largest investment in green energy ever and we were able to pull it off with Manchin and Sinema being the deciding factors here. It's a huge win and shouldn't be treated as anything else.
It's wildly inadequate compared to what pretty much ever expert says is actually required to deal with climate change. I'll take it, and it's better than nothing, but the best thing about this bill (if it passes) is that it gives the Democrats something to point to going into the midterms, which will hopefully result in them gaining some seats and then being able to pass legislation more on the scale of what is needed.
This is not a knock on the legislation exactly, nor on the Democrats, simply stating that actually really doing something about climate change is going to involve $TEXAS levels of funding and investment, which this bill doesn't do.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
The Rhine is drying up enough to fuck up boat travel on it. We as a global community could turn off everything that burns oil or coal tomorrow, and it would likely still be inadequate to stop the freight train. Adequate measures are infeasible both politically and technologically. Wildly inadequate is the best win any one country acting alone can put together.
The BBB IRA is literally ~$Wisconsin levels of investment, though. On top of the ~$Florida levels of investment in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, which includes a lot of climate change related aspects as well. The challenge of requiring unanimity within a caucus that runs the gamut from Sanders to Manchin.
But also, thank Georgia that it's even possible in the first place. Considering the literal zero seat majority in the Senate this has been a rather accomplished Congress. More than I would have guessed at the start, anyway, knowing that it would be a frustrating sausage factory rather than all the memes about West Virginia becoming a $trillion theme park.
It's only "wildly inadequate" if you compare it to some magical fantasy bill you dreamed up that has no chance in actual reality. This is one of if not the largest investment in green energy ever and we were able to pull it off with Manchin and Sinema being the deciding factors here. It's a huge win and shouldn't be treated as anything else.
Adequacy would be defined by need, not possibility
It's only "wildly inadequate" if you compare it to some magical fantasy bill you dreamed up that has no chance in actual reality. This is one of if not the largest investment in green energy ever and we were able to pull it off with Manchin and Sinema being the deciding factors here. It's a huge win and shouldn't be treated as anything else.
In my post I said “a legit huge legislative accomplishment that will do a lot of good” which is synonymous with “huge win”
The only bill I’d even compare it to is BBB, no fantasy bill needed
I’m not shitting on the bill, I’m shitting on the circumstances where this bill is a legit huge accomplishment vs us just passing mundane annual appropriations that adequately address the sustainability problems our society faces
Not sure why the hostility
Captain Inertia on
+7
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
They did replace the carried interest loophole with a tax on stock buybacks. Estimated 73 billion dollars.
Isn't this like 4 or 5x as much as carried interest would have brought in? This seems like a good trade?
Carried Interest was scored at $14bn, so yes. However, closing the Carried Interest loophole was more guaranteed revenue, and specifically from rich wall Street fund managers which would help some with regards to income inequality. This will probably just shift stock buybacks to some new financial innovation tax dodge. Which, as far as revenue/ deficit reduction is concerned... meh. The climate investments are worthwhile regardless of if they're funded or paid with debt. It would just have been nice to also improve the tax code to be less fucked up overall as its own standalone good thing.
They did replace the carried interest loophole with a tax on stock buybacks. Estimated 73 billion dollars.
Isn't this like 4 or 5x as much as carried interest would have brought in? This seems like a good trade?
Carried Interest was scored at $14bn, so yes. However, closing the Carried Interest loophole was more guaranteed revenue, and specifically from rich wall Street fund managers which would help some with regards to income inequality. This will probably just shift stock buybacks to some new financial innovation tax dodge. Which, as far as revenue/ deficit reduction is concerned... meh. The climate investments are worthwhile regardless of if they're funded or paid with debt. It would just have been nice to also improve the tax code to be less fucked up overall as its own standalone good thing.
The climate investments and prescription drug improvements are such a huge deal the rest of it can be whatever.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
They did replace the carried interest loophole with a tax on stock buybacks. Estimated 73 billion dollars.
Isn't this like 4 or 5x as much as carried interest would have brought in? This seems like a good trade?
Carried Interest was scored at $14bn, so yes. However, closing the Carried Interest loophole was more guaranteed revenue, and specifically from rich wall Street fund managers which would help some with regards to income inequality. This will probably just shift stock buybacks to some new financial innovation tax dodge. Which, as far as revenue/ deficit reduction is concerned... meh. The climate investments are worthwhile regardless of if they're funded or paid with debt. It would just have been nice to also improve the tax code to be less fucked up overall as its own standalone good thing.
The climate investments and prescription drug improvements are such a huge deal the rest of it can be whatever.
Although I really wish they had just made the expanded ACA subsidies permanent instead of a perpetual sword of Damocles. Though that'll hit whoever is President in 2025, so at least they timed it right politically. But still. Keep making incremental improvements on it until we're basically the German system.
+3
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
Steny Hoyer is saying they're bringing the House back into session next Friday, August 12, to pass the IRA.
Also going to point out that a fair bit of this stuff, is likely safe from republican fuckery for at least two years.
The prescription stuff should prove popular enough to reach ACA levels of acceptance. The climate change stuff probably melds with the existing local level stuff that has proven problematic for state and local republican parties to blow off. This all means that Biden is unlikely to be persuaded to roll that stuff back in the even that the GOP gains control of both chambers.
Past that point, I'm less optimistic because the GOP has become increasingly crazier and I'm not keen to bet on the average voter to not royally fuck things up. Partly, I don't think two years will be enough for everything to thoroughly entrench itself into broad public support, ACA took a damn long time to hit that.
Not sure we even have enough time for some of this stuff to start having a noticeable positive impact for the average voter to notice, but maybe it will. It at least has the good time to be getting coverage as things start to improve.
Also going to point out that a fair bit of this stuff, is likely safe from republican fuckery for at least two years.
The prescription stuff should prove popular enough to reach ACA levels of acceptance. The climate change stuff probably melds with the existing local level stuff that has proven problematic for state and local republican parties to blow off. This all means that Biden is unlikely to be persuaded to roll that stuff back in the even that the GOP gains control of both chambers.
Past that point, I'm less optimistic because the GOP has become increasingly crazier and I'm not keen to bet on the average voter to not royally fuck things up. Partly, I don't think two years will be enough for everything to thoroughly entrench itself into broad public support, ACA took a damn long time to hit that.
Not sure we even have enough time for some of this stuff to start having a noticeable positive impact for the average voter to notice, but maybe it will. It at least has the good time to be getting coverage as things start to improve.
I mean the ACA took them literally failing to repeal it with control of both houses and the presidency before they really did stop. And even then they have tried to poison pill it at every turn.
No matter how popular something is they don't care.
Also going to point out that a fair bit of this stuff, is likely safe from republican fuckery for at least two years.
The prescription stuff should prove popular enough to reach ACA levels of acceptance. The climate change stuff probably melds with the existing local level stuff that has proven problematic for state and local republican parties to blow off. This all means that Biden is unlikely to be persuaded to roll that stuff back in the even that the GOP gains control of both chambers.
Past that point, I'm less optimistic because the GOP has become increasingly crazier and I'm not keen to bet on the average voter to not royally fuck things up. Partly, I don't think two years will be enough for everything to thoroughly entrench itself into broad public support, ACA took a damn long time to hit that.
Not sure we even have enough time for some of this stuff to start having a noticeable positive impact for the average voter to notice, but maybe it will. It at least has the good time to be getting coverage as things start to improve.
I mean the ACA took them literally failing to repeal it with control of both houses and the presidency before they really did stop. And even then they have tried to poison pill it at every turn.
No matter how popular something is they don't care.
See also abortion. Or the tax cut bill they passed under Trump.
The Republican party is essentially entirely divorced from the need to have popular positions or policies.
Also going to point out that a fair bit of this stuff, is likely safe from republican fuckery for at least two years.
The prescription stuff should prove popular enough to reach ACA levels of acceptance. The climate change stuff probably melds with the existing local level stuff that has proven problematic for state and local republican parties to blow off. This all means that Biden is unlikely to be persuaded to roll that stuff back in the even that the GOP gains control of both chambers.
Past that point, I'm less optimistic because the GOP has become increasingly crazier and I'm not keen to bet on the average voter to not royally fuck things up. Partly, I don't think two years will be enough for everything to thoroughly entrench itself into broad public support, ACA took a damn long time to hit that.
Not sure we even have enough time for some of this stuff to start having a noticeable positive impact for the average voter to notice, but maybe it will. It at least has the good time to be getting coverage as things start to improve.
The main thing is that it's mostly an accelerant for already existing things happening in industry. It's "realistic" that it will cut greenhouse gas emissions ~40% below 2005 levels by the decade's end. Which is great! I believe the same Princeton report pointed to ~25% reductions if nothing happened at the Federal level, because we already peaked and are already reducing our carbon emissions every year as it stands. Just not by enough nor quick enough. This will be a nice kick in the pants, and also something that's working with a tailwind that makes it harder to undo even with pure Republican id in the driver's seat.
+2
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Also going to point out that a fair bit of this stuff, is likely safe from republican fuckery for at least two years.
The prescription stuff should prove popular enough to reach ACA levels of acceptance. The climate change stuff probably melds with the existing local level stuff that has proven problematic for state and local republican parties to blow off. This all means that Biden is unlikely to be persuaded to roll that stuff back in the even that the GOP gains control of both chambers.
Past that point, I'm less optimistic because the GOP has become increasingly crazier and I'm not keen to bet on the average voter to not royally fuck things up. Partly, I don't think two years will be enough for everything to thoroughly entrench itself into broad public support, ACA took a damn long time to hit that.
Not sure we even have enough time for some of this stuff to start having a noticeable positive impact for the average voter to notice, but maybe it will. It at least has the good time to be getting coverage as things start to improve.
I mean the ACA took them literally failing to repeal it with control of both houses and the presidency before they really did stop. And even then they have tried to poison pill it at every turn.
No matter how popular something is they don't care.
Yeah, they acted squeamish about it at first but the last bill to fail was basically a full repeal and it was killed by McCain only because he was so intensely annoyed by McConnell rejecting traditional Senate procedures.
Also going to point out that a fair bit of this stuff, is likely safe from republican fuckery for at least two years.
The prescription stuff should prove popular enough to reach ACA levels of acceptance. The climate change stuff probably melds with the existing local level stuff that has proven problematic for state and local republican parties to blow off. This all means that Biden is unlikely to be persuaded to roll that stuff back in the even that the GOP gains control of both chambers.
Past that point, I'm less optimistic because the GOP has become increasingly crazier and I'm not keen to bet on the average voter to not royally fuck things up. Partly, I don't think two years will be enough for everything to thoroughly entrench itself into broad public support, ACA took a damn long time to hit that.
Not sure we even have enough time for some of this stuff to start having a noticeable positive impact for the average voter to notice, but maybe it will. It at least has the good time to be getting coverage as things start to improve.
I mean the ACA took them literally failing to repeal it with control of both houses and the presidency before they really did stop. And even then they have tried to poison pill it at every turn.
No matter how popular something is they don't care.
Yeah, they acted squeamish about it at first but the last bill to fail was basically a full repeal and it was killed by McCain only because he was so intensely annoyed by McConnell rejecting traditional Senate procedures.
You're overlooking Sens Murkowski and Collins along with a unanimous Democratic caucus.
Assuming this gets signed into law within a month or two, how long until the new Electric Vehicle Tax credit regime replaces the outgoing one? Is it immediate or generally done at the start of the new year?
Also going to point out that a fair bit of this stuff, is likely safe from republican fuckery for at least two years.
The prescription stuff should prove popular enough to reach ACA levels of acceptance. The climate change stuff probably melds with the existing local level stuff that has proven problematic for state and local republican parties to blow off. This all means that Biden is unlikely to be persuaded to roll that stuff back in the even that the GOP gains control of both chambers.
Past that point, I'm less optimistic because the GOP has become increasingly crazier and I'm not keen to bet on the average voter to not royally fuck things up. Partly, I don't think two years will be enough for everything to thoroughly entrench itself into broad public support, ACA took a damn long time to hit that.
Not sure we even have enough time for some of this stuff to start having a noticeable positive impact for the average voter to notice, but maybe it will. It at least has the good time to be getting coverage as things start to improve.
I mean the ACA took them literally failing to repeal it with control of both houses and the presidency before they really did stop. And even then they have tried to poison pill it at every turn.
No matter how popular something is they don't care.
See also abortion. Or the tax cut bill they passed under Trump.
The Republican party is essentially entirely divorced from the need to have popular positions or policies.
e.g. Why they've been dead set against any kind of voting revision since, you know, amongst the first things needed to be done is to get rid of political gerrymandering. That would shatter the party and force them to do popular things if they want power, not the stuff their fanatically racist religious backers want them to do.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Hence why I said Biden shouldn't feel inclined to go along with GOP repeals. It should be popular enough that he will feel that compromising with dipshit republicans on it is a losing position.
Worst case scenario, if the GOP gets a trifecta, I'd wager they'd repeal all of it out of spite. Well maybe not the stuff propping up the green energy sector, the lag between the local/state parties and the national party on green energy might have closed enough that the votes won't be there. I'll have to dig up the article I found talking about it but the state and local parties do run into serious headwinds when they try fucking with green energy stuff because so many of their voters are employed by that sector or know someone they care about that is employed by that sector. Fox and the national party haven't shifted over yet and are still very much enthralled by the fossil fuel barons that want that stuff fucked with. Mind you there are exceptions, like NC has some fucking clown in the legislature that wants to use taxpayer dollars to tear down all the EV charging stations. So even if the shift finishes, there will always be some republican asshole that wants to gut that stuff to own the libs. I'm just sure two more years will be enough, but who knows. Again, I can only see the green sector stuff sliding to a point where the GOP is afraid to fuck with it too much because it'll piss off too much of their base that is employed by the sector, everything else, well they'll try fucking with it, that I can agree on.
I'm just hoping this is still in time to move votes for the midterms. Would have been nice to have gotten it earlier in the year, to give it more time to do shit.
I just hope they get the vote in before anything can fuck shit up in the senate.
Posts
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Wonder if the House comes back before September to pass the final version.
It’s a fancy way to get income treated as capital gains.
Short version: if you manage an investment fund, rather than getting a salary on which you pay ordinary income taxes, you can make your sole compensation be a portion of the fund's investment returns, upon which you only pay capital gains taxes. So instead of paying the 37% top marginal rate on wage income, you pay the 15% on investment income.
and did it close it? or just make it 5 years instead of 3 years
You add NIIT too so it's 23.8%. Still a pretty big reduction of between 8-13%.
Obviously we should get rid of that, but I'm curious: doesn't that imply that some years your compensation will be $0?
In this congress, once you've got a deal and 50 healthy senators, you vote on it. Glad to see Schumer understands the stakes and is trying to prevent a Ted Kennedy-ACA situation.
Only if you're so incompetent that you get fired anyway
Yes, but that could be for a variety of factors from incompetence as mentioned to intentional tax harvesting (like advisors are doing this year, I think)
….and then get super shitty with my wife when they don’t have qualifying income for their mortgage application (she’s a mortgage loan officer)
They left the thing in the bill that Sinema would assuredly balk at so she could have a thing to remove, which was conveniently replaced with something else good that mostly recovered the difference, but allowed her to save face with her donor class.
They did her a solid so that all the good stuff could get across the line with her support.
I still hope she is primaried out of her seat in a couple years, but I am glad they did this dance. It is going to put a lot of good things into motion.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Yeah, if everything you got was based on the fund's performance you'd be getting nuttin. That's not usually the case though. The thing for hedge funds back in the day was two and twenty. So the fund got 2% of assets under management and 20% of the returns. This is obviously not a great deal for the customer unless the fund was performing like a boss. The other thing about that sort of compensation profile is that it provides a strong incentive for the hedge fund to close it's doors and do a little reorg and rebranding if they have a negative year. That resets the baseline for the 20%.
I disagree. A bill with only 49 votes fails just as much as a bill with 0 votes. If you know the vote will fail and a yes will look good with your voting base, you vote yes on the bill because there will be no consequences.
If you're rich enough that the carried interest loophole / capital gains tax has a significant impact on your income, you can afford to wait a year or even several before needing said income.
The only other thing she wanted was drought relief for the SW which is actually a good thing to ask for.
I'm still kind of disbelief at all of the great things that made it into this bill and are finally going to get passed.
Kind of wild how bad the status quo is that something still so wildly inadequate and not remotely radical is also simultaneously a legit huge legislative accomplishment that will do a lot of good
……
It's wildly inadequate compared to what pretty much ever expert says is actually required to deal with climate change. I'll take it, and it's better than nothing, but the best thing about this bill (if it passes) is that it gives the Democrats something to point to going into the midterms, which will hopefully result in them gaining some seats and then being able to pass legislation more on the scale of what is needed.
This is not a knock on the legislation exactly, nor on the Democrats, simply stating that actually really doing something about climate change is going to involve $TEXAS levels of funding and investment, which this bill doesn't do.
But also, thank Georgia that it's even possible in the first place. Considering the literal zero seat majority in the Senate this has been a rather accomplished Congress. More than I would have guessed at the start, anyway, knowing that it would be a frustrating sausage factory rather than all the memes about West Virginia becoming a $trillion theme park.
Adequacy would be defined by need, not possibility
In my post I said “a legit huge legislative accomplishment that will do a lot of good” which is synonymous with “huge win”
The only bill I’d even compare it to is BBB, no fantasy bill needed
I’m not shitting on the bill, I’m shitting on the circumstances where this bill is a legit huge accomplishment vs us just passing mundane annual appropriations that adequately address the sustainability problems our society faces
Not sure why the hostility
Isn't this like 4 or 5x as much as carried interest would have brought in? This seems like a good trade?
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Carried Interest was scored at $14bn, so yes. However, closing the Carried Interest loophole was more guaranteed revenue, and specifically from rich wall Street fund managers which would help some with regards to income inequality. This will probably just shift stock buybacks to some new financial innovation tax dodge. Which, as far as revenue/ deficit reduction is concerned... meh. The climate investments are worthwhile regardless of if they're funded or paid with debt. It would just have been nice to also improve the tax code to be less fucked up overall as its own standalone good thing.
The climate investments and prescription drug improvements are such a huge deal the rest of it can be whatever.
Although I really wish they had just made the expanded ACA subsidies permanent instead of a perpetual sword of Damocles. Though that'll hit whoever is President in 2025, so at least they timed it right politically. But still. Keep making incremental improvements on it until we're basically the German system.
The prescription stuff should prove popular enough to reach ACA levels of acceptance. The climate change stuff probably melds with the existing local level stuff that has proven problematic for state and local republican parties to blow off. This all means that Biden is unlikely to be persuaded to roll that stuff back in the even that the GOP gains control of both chambers.
Past that point, I'm less optimistic because the GOP has become increasingly crazier and I'm not keen to bet on the average voter to not royally fuck things up. Partly, I don't think two years will be enough for everything to thoroughly entrench itself into broad public support, ACA took a damn long time to hit that.
Not sure we even have enough time for some of this stuff to start having a noticeable positive impact for the average voter to notice, but maybe it will. It at least has the good time to be getting coverage as things start to improve.
I mean the ACA took them literally failing to repeal it with control of both houses and the presidency before they really did stop. And even then they have tried to poison pill it at every turn.
No matter how popular something is they don't care.
See also abortion. Or the tax cut bill they passed under Trump.
The Republican party is essentially entirely divorced from the need to have popular positions or policies.
The main thing is that it's mostly an accelerant for already existing things happening in industry. It's "realistic" that it will cut greenhouse gas emissions ~40% below 2005 levels by the decade's end. Which is great! I believe the same Princeton report pointed to ~25% reductions if nothing happened at the Federal level, because we already peaked and are already reducing our carbon emissions every year as it stands. Just not by enough nor quick enough. This will be a nice kick in the pants, and also something that's working with a tailwind that makes it harder to undo even with pure Republican id in the driver's seat.
Yeah, they acted squeamish about it at first but the last bill to fail was basically a full repeal and it was killed by McCain only because he was so intensely annoyed by McConnell rejecting traditional Senate procedures.
You're overlooking Sens Murkowski and Collins along with a unanimous Democratic caucus.
e.g. Why they've been dead set against any kind of voting revision since, you know, amongst the first things needed to be done is to get rid of political gerrymandering. That would shatter the party and force them to do popular things if they want power, not the stuff their fanatically racist religious backers want them to do.
Worst case scenario, if the GOP gets a trifecta, I'd wager they'd repeal all of it out of spite. Well maybe not the stuff propping up the green energy sector, the lag between the local/state parties and the national party on green energy might have closed enough that the votes won't be there. I'll have to dig up the article I found talking about it but the state and local parties do run into serious headwinds when they try fucking with green energy stuff because so many of their voters are employed by that sector or know someone they care about that is employed by that sector. Fox and the national party haven't shifted over yet and are still very much enthralled by the fossil fuel barons that want that stuff fucked with. Mind you there are exceptions, like NC has some fucking clown in the legislature that wants to use taxpayer dollars to tear down all the EV charging stations. So even if the shift finishes, there will always be some republican asshole that wants to gut that stuff to own the libs. I'm just sure two more years will be enough, but who knows. Again, I can only see the green sector stuff sliding to a point where the GOP is afraid to fuck with it too much because it'll piss off too much of their base that is employed by the sector, everything else, well they'll try fucking with it, that I can agree on.
I'm just hoping this is still in time to move votes for the midterms. Would have been nice to have gotten it earlier in the year, to give it more time to do shit.
I just hope they get the vote in before anything can fuck shit up in the senate.
The press sure wouldn't