I am 100% convinced that what the rush to get all of this stuff done is. Then if something bad happens, they can just blame it all on him.

That's exactly the tax bill plan. They've delayed all the bad parts long enough that they can either 1) blame them on Trump or 2) on the next Democratic administration, thus absolving them of responsibility.

I understand that the sentiment is aimed at "all the loopholes people have thrown in", but I think this kind of statement is somewhat backwards and counterproductive.

 

Yes there are too many loopholes, but seriously, we're talking about something that manages a $20 trillion economy. This should not be short or simple. You can, if done intelligently, make it "straightforwards and workable", but 10 pages - that's actually harmful.

 

Do we want to use the tax code to encourage anything at all? To give people some benefit to say, have retirement savings? I think there's plenty of logic in that. Do you think you could define a 401K plan in 10 pages in a legal sense? I certainly don't. One of their gambits this time is switching to a different definition of inflation so that as time goes on everyone will start slowly seeing taxes be a larger share of their income. Do you think you can define inflation in the entire economy in 10 pages?

 

You can make a case for "reform". This has a little sprinkling of that in it, but the parts it reforms are entirely "make sure it hurts Democratic states and voters as much as possible" and the rest is a corporate tax cut and estate tax cut paid for by a broad based tax hike starting in about 7-8 years.

 

Yes, I want the tax code to be exactly 10 pages. Not 9 pages, not 11 pages. Never mind.

 

Either way, there will never be reform when the people who make the laws are among the very wealthy. People in Washington have zero incentive to make legit changes. The GOP "makes sure it hurts Democratic states and voters as much as possible". The Democrats make sure the poor are given just enough handouts to make sure Democratic states and voters stay Democratic while doing nothing to hurt their own pocketbooks. I guess one side appears better than the other because it pretends to help people, but nothing is really ever getting better for most of the country.

Yes, I want the tax code to be exactly 10 pages. Not 9 pages, not 11 pages. Never mind.

 

Either way, there will never be reform when the people who make the laws are among the very wealthy. People in Washington have zero incentive to make legit changes. The GOP "makes sure it hurts Democratic states and voters as much as possible". The Democrats make sure the poor are given just enough handouts to make sure Democratic states and voters stay Democratic while doing nothing to hurt their own pocketbooks. I guess one side appears better than the other because it pretends to help people, but nothing is really ever getting better for most of the country.

These people stopped representing their voters decades ago, and I'm f***ing sick of it. People we elect shouldnt be made millionaires while in office.

They're largely already millionaires going in or make most of their money becoming lobbyists and peddling their influence and connections once they're out.

 

And a lot of it comes back to financing campaigns. Billionaire donors hold a whole hell of a lot of sway. It's part of why such accumulating so much wealth in the hands of a few is damaging for democracy and freedom. Our Senators and Reps answer first and foremost to the guys cutting the big checks. You and I are somewhere way down the line.

These people stopped representing their voters decades ago, and I'm f***ing sick of it. People we elect shouldnt be made millionaires while in office.

No doubt.

Yes, I want the tax code to be exactly 10 pages. Not 9 pages, not 11 pages. Never mind.

 

Either way, there will never be reform when the people who make the laws are among the very wealthy. People in Washington have zero incentive to make legit changes. The GOP "makes sure it hurts Democratic states and voters as much as possible". The Democrats make sure the poor are given just enough handouts to make sure Democratic states and voters stay Democratic while doing nothing to hurt their own pocketbooks. I guess one side appears better than the other because it pretends to help people, but nothing is really ever getting better for most of the country.

And it gets worse each voting cycle.

They're largely already millionaires going in or make most of their money becoming lobbyists and peddling their influence and connections once they're out.

 

And a lot of it comes back to financing campaigns. Billionaire donors hold a whole hell of a lot of sway. It's part of why such accumulating so much wealth in the hands of a few is damaging for democracy and freedom. Our Senators and Reps answer first and foremost to the guys cutting the big checks. You and I are somewhere way down the line.

They need a campaign cap like a salary cap. Politics and baseball have something in common.

100% publicly financed campaigns with zero outside contributions would be nice

 

SCOTUS has basically ruled that you can't have any campaign finance laws though due to free speech.

Flake moved to Yes based on a promise to "be included in future DACA talks" which seems like a really, really weak ask.

100% publicly financed campaigns with zero outside contributions would be nice

 

SCOTUS has basically ruled that you can't have any campaign finance laws though due to free speech.

That works too.

Flake moved to Yes based on a promise to "be included in future DACA talks" which seems like a really, really weak ask.

 

After Corker was going to be gifted $300-400 billion being cut off...?

 

 

And as far as “giveaways” go, Bush did exactly that with Medicare and the prescription drug benefit. That was for nothing other than politically calculating reasons. Let’s not play along with Romney Math and assume 47% of Americans will automatically vote for Dems because they receive some type of Federal government support like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

 

If it was so cut and dried for the lower classes to vote strictly on socioeconomic and not social issues, Gore would have won in 2000 and Clinton in 2016...and nothing that Trump has done so far is going to benefit ANY of those voters who got duped by him in the Heartland and Rust Belt.

 

None of them will be better off in the pocketbook, especially when the consequences to health care affordability become more and more tangible to voters over the next couple of years.

Edited December 1, 20178 yr by caulfield12

Yes. If you make a lot of money, it's really, really good for you. If not, not so good.

I'm not sure about this. Remember the income tax would also go down in the process. Think about how much money you and I spend, then think about how much the wealthy spend.

 

How much revenue would be generated at 20% from $2,000 suits, luxury automobiles, private aircraft and other things that only the wealthy purchase.

Edited December 1, 20178 yr by ptatc

I'm not sure about this. Remember the income tax would also go down in the process. Think about how much money you and I spend, then think about how much the wealthy spend.

 

How much revenue would be generated at 20% from $2,000 suits, luxury automobiles, private aircraft and other things that only the wealthy purchase.

 

There's been plenty of studies on this. A flat VAT is very, very regressive. As a percentage of their total income, the wealthy spend far less than the non-wealthy, who spend nearly 100%.

 

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/01...-is-regressive/

The wealthy save and invest a much higher percentage of their income than the poor or even the middle class.

 

The way around this would be to exempt "necessary" goods like food or clothing from a VAT, but that again makes a more complex tax code. We do that already with sales taxes at least for food, fwiw.

Edited December 1, 20178 yr by StrangeSox

There's been plenty of studies on this. A flat VAT is very, very regressive. As a percentage of their total income, the wealthy spend far less than the non-wealthy, who spend nearly 100%.

 

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/01...-is-regressive/

The wealthy save and invest a much higher percentage of their income than the poor or even the middle class.

 

The way around this would be to exempt "necessary" goods like food or clothing from a VAT, but that again makes a more complex tax code. We do that already with sales taxes at least for food, fwiw.

Most of the difference there has to do with the VAT not including some significant items, not the least of which are financial services and multiple residences and travel. Most of it is also based on % but they do not discuss the ramifications on the gross revenue. The wealthy do spend a more than the non-wealthy but not as a % of the income. This is why an income tax is still needed but shouldn't necessarily be the primary tax.

 

I agree the necessary items should be exempt, especially food. I think it would still be a more simple tax code and more fair than the current system. However, A tax or money person, I am not.

Most of the difference there has to do with the VAT not including some significant items, not the least of which are financial services and multiple residences and travel. Most of it is also based on % but they do not discuss the ramifications on the gross revenue. The wealthy do spend a more than the non-wealthy but not as a % of the income. This is why an income tax is still needed but shouldn't necessarily be the primary tax.

 

I agree the necessary items should be exempt, especially food. I think it would still be a more simple tax code and more fair than the current system. However, A tax or money person, I am not.

I think there's general agreement that a more simplified tax code would be more fair no matter how we did it, but I would also note that, just as in the exercise we went through, simplified does not always mean more fair or better.

I think there's general agreement that a more simplified tax code would be more fair no matter how we did it, but I would also note that, just as in the exercise we went through, simplified does not always mean more fair or better.

These two comments seem to contradict one another.

 

Collins is a yes so they have the votes, now they just need a bill. Lobbyists not done writing it yet, I guess.

Collins is a yes so they have the votes, now they just need a bill. Lobbyists not done writing it yet, I guess.

They have votes for a bill that doesnt exist. That should make everyone really confident in whats going on.

How can you vote yes on a bill that's not written?

How can you vote yes on a bill that's not written?

America 2017

How can you vote yes on a bill that's not written?

They'll hold the final vote as soon as they're done writing it, it's just these senators have already said they'll vote Yes because they received assurances that McConnell will maybe think about DACA and will definitely work hard to not cut Medicare (they will cut Medicare)

I'm not sure about this. Remember the income tax would also go down in the process. Think about how much money you and I spend, then think about how much the wealthy spend.

 

How much revenue would be generated at 20% from $2,000 suits, luxury automobiles, private aircraft and other things that only the wealthy purchase.

 

See The Millionaire Next Door.

 

You’re really going to end up taxing those who are living beyond their means...it wouldn’t have a punitive effect on the truly wealthy, because they don’t go out and lease the latest Audi or BMW.

 

Maybe if it was yachts in the over $10 million class, private/corporate jets, golf club memberships, etc.

How can you vote yes on a bill that's not written?

 

Pelosi comments about ObamaCare will be used as the justification here...

Special perks for private equity firms added, that'll really help the middle class!

 

https://t.co/D305L2nKDZ

The GOP list of economists supporting their tax plan includes an office assistant, a guy who doesnt seem to exist, and a bankruptcy attorney convicted of forging a judge's signature, among other shady names.

 

https://t.co/BGDde6wT6L