Should D's help R's to fix flawed Tax Bill?

Yes, I do. I would much prefer that republicans work with a democrat president to meet in the middle of the road as opposed to fighting over one extreme or the other.

So Democrats should fix a bill that Republicans delibertly pushed through without their input? Shouldn't the bill just be redone with input from both sides, since that's the expectation you have in the first place?
 
The recent Republican tax bill has a number of serious flaws. In order to fix them, the Republicans need help from Democrats because although the original bill was passed through reconciliation which requires 51 votes whereas the corrections will require 60 votes, which the R's do not have. The ObamaCare bill had similar issues and the R's refused to help the D's make the corrections and instead argued against some of the corrections all the way to the SCOTUS.

Should the D's take the high road and just concede and make the changes? Should they demand something in return like reinstatement of ability write off local taxes? Do the R's have the energy and will to really tackle the issue or are they moving on?

I think the D's should take the high road. I think the R's acted terribly on the Obamacare technical corrections (like the R's now want to make to the tax bill) and on the Garland nomination, but at some point one of the parties needs to take the lead on making government function and I think D's should start with helping the R's on this one.

Hera are a few of the issues with the current bill.

For instance:

Incentives for farmers to sell grain to co-ops is so high that independent silos are likely to go out of business.

"In a statement, Ibach urged Congress to level the playing field. “The aim of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was to spur economic growth across the entire American economy, including in the agricultural sector,” he said. “While the goal was to preserve benefits in Section 199A for cooperatives and their patrons, the unintended consequences of the current language disadvantage the independent operators in the same industry. We applaud Congress for acknowledging and moving to correct the disparity, and our expectation is that a solution is forthcoming.”

“The federal tax code should not pick winners and losers in the marketplace.” The statement was part of a release today from USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Greg Ibach, but that is exactly what changes to Section 199A in the new tax law do, creating a significant tax advantage for co-ops."

"The conservative Tax Foundation said that the flaw should be addressed quickly, saying that, if left in place, “the deduction would allow some farmers to effectively become tax-exempt.”

Leaders of independent grain companies from Oklahoma, Minnesota and South Dakota traveled to Washington in late February to make their case to lawmakers that a fix was urgently needed, warning that businesses like theirs could collapse or be sold."


https://www.agrimarketing.com/s/114651
https://www.agweb.com/article/usda-wants-fix-to-tax-bill-preference-for-co-ops/
https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/10481-grain-elevators-desperate-for-tax-bill-fix


And

"A typo in another section prevents developers from fully deducting expenses from commercial real estate improvements like remodeling for 39 years, instead of immediately, as was the plan."


And

"... a lack of clarity could allow hedge funds and private equity firms to sidestep a provision that would prevent them from counting earnings from their investments as capital gains instead of income—commonly known as the “carried interest” loophole, as capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than income—unless they held the investments for at least three years. The law exempts corporations from this rule but doesn’t specify what kind of corporations, leading hedge fund managers to rush to Delaware to create LLCs to duck the new restriction."

More reading.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/...-Errors-Uncertainty-and-Opportunity-Democrats


Strategically yes, they should participate. I was reading the other day about how Obamacare was unpopular and became moreso immediately after passing so stonewall opposition was a good political strategy for the GOP. The tax bill, however is the opposite - having increased in popularity since it was passed. The Dems would likely want to be involved in any tweaks both for the virtue and for the optics of it.
 
So Democrats should fix a bill that Republicans delibertly pushed through without their input? Shouldn't the bill just be redone with input from both sides, since that's the expectation you have in the first place?
No, they should just whine and bitch about and then tear it down in 4 years to once again shaft the middle class. Is that what you think?
 
No, they should just whine and bitch about and then tear it down in 4 years to once again shaft the middle class. Is that what you think?

I think the middle class is already deeply shafted by this tax bill to begin with as they will see middling increases in take home income (especially if they own a home in the northeast), while still being in a position to feel the pinch when services are cut, along with being the group sticking footing the bill on the needlessly increased deficit in the future. This bill is bad for the middle class so it failing is in no way shafting them.

I mean you know they can lower taxes on the middle class without drastically lowering taxes on the rich right? There's no actual rule that says we need to go with trickle down tax cuts, just a Republican ideology on it.

They shouldn't fix a bad bill they had no part in. It should fail so that then the Republicans have to what you yourself expect them to do, which is work across the aisle. Which they did not do in the first place, which is why we are here.

I'm just holding them to your expectations.
 
I think the middle class is already deeply shafted by this tax bill to begin with as they will see middling increases in take home income (especially if they own a home in the northeast), while still being in a position to feel the pinch when services are cut, along with being the group sticking footing the bill on the needlessly increased deficit in the future. This bill is bad for the middle class so it failing is in no way starting them.

I mean you know they can lower taxes on the middle class without drastically lowering taxes on the rich right? There's no actual rule that says we need to go with trickle down tax cuts, just a Republican ideology on it.

They shouldn't fix a bad bill they had no part in. It should fail so that then the Republicans have to what you yourself expect them to do, which is work across the aisle. Which they did not do in the first place, which is why we are here.

I'm just holding them to your expectations.
I'm middle class and its saved me about 120 bucks a month. No windfall. Its not changing my life but its literally the first time in my life (41 years old) that I feel like I have benefited at all from anything our government has done. (edit- actually Bill Clinton extended unemployment bennies at a time in my life when I couldn't find work, so there's that)

As not PC as it may sound, the important issues to me aren't poor people, racism and immigrants. Sorry if that offends people. Sorry that I have the unrealistic dream of our governing officials trying to make the best of things.
 
Yes, I do. I would much prefer that republicans work with a democrat president to meet in the middle of the road as opposed to fighting over one extreme or the other.

Yet you constantly champion the right. Typical so-called Libertarian. When the chips are down your true colors show.
 
Yet you constantly champion the right. Typical so-called Libertarian. When the chips are down your true colors show.
Right, because I'm a conservative. Conservative values appeal to me.

But I'd prefer not to get shit on every 4 or 8 years and I'd like to think the other half of the country would agree.
 
I'm middle class and its saved me about 120 bucks a month. No windfall. Its not changing my life but its literally the first time in my life (41 years old) that I feel like I have benefited at all from anything our government has done. (edit- actually Bill Clinton extended unemployment bennies at a time in my life when I couldn't find work, so there's that)

As not PC as it may sound, the important issues to me aren't poor people, racism and immigrants. Sorry if that offends people. Sorry that I have the unrealistic dream of our governing officials trying to make the best of things.

Obama also did this during the GR. Notice how Repubs don't do these type of things?
 
Right, because I'm a conservative. Conservative values appeal to me.

But I'd prefer not to get shit on every 4 or 8 years and I'd like to think the other half of the country would agree.

You gloss over right-winged bullshit to the point you make it hard to believe you are a Libertarian. You aren't consistent with your judgements, and it is noticed.
 
I say yes the DEMs should help, but ONLY with some concessions. Why do it if it just helps fuck over the middle-class and the poor. This is a bargaining chip and it should be played. That's a hell of a lot more than the R's would do.

I love how all the right-wingers are all "of course they should help, it's their job". Go fuck yourselves guys. The hypocrisy is sickening.
What about people who feel that way about both parties? Do we have to fuck ourselves, too?
 
Yes, I do. I would much prefer that republicans work with a democrat president to meet in the middle of the road as opposed to fighting over one extreme or the other.

I feel like our choices are devolving into raw steak or well-done steak with ketchup. As a guy who likes his steak plain and medium rare, I'd be really happy to be offered a medium-steak with a side of A1.
 
From a Democrat's POV it's not clear to me why they would help. The Rs want the Ds help to fix what they perceive to be problems/mistakes with the bill but Democrats think almost all, if not all of the bill is filled with major problems. So is the expectation is to help Rs fix only the problems they see with the bill without addressing the problems Ds see with the bill?

If the problems are objectively bad of course the Ds should help fix them. But why would Ds rush to fix the code for farms (as one example) when they strongly disagree with cutting a couple of trillion in taxes on large corporations/estates/high income individuals or the repeal of the mandate which undermines insurance markets?

It's also worth pointing out the obvious (to those paying attention) that Rs rammed this fucking thing through way too fast and without careful analysis and zero input from Ds. Rs refuse to operate on good faith.

They should just get a concession from Rs on this.
 
I'm middle class and its saved me about 120 bucks a month. No windfall. Its not changing my life but its literally the first time in my life (41 years old) that I feel like I have benefited at all from anything our government has done. (edit- actually Bill Clinton extended unemployment bennies at a time in my life when I couldn't find work, so there's that)

As not PC as it may sound, the important issues to me aren't poor people, racism and immigrants. Sorry if that offends people. Sorry that I have the unrealistic dream of our governing officials trying to make the best of things.

Kind of says something about you when you recognize the one time (because I'm sure that's the only time) the government benefited you was to extend unemployment benefits when you couldn't work while at the same time touting $120 extra dollars a month at the expense of services for people in the same situation you were once in. Nevermind the long term effect that you'll deal with eventually too.

But as you said you expect each party to work across the aisle on things. The Republicans did not do so on this subject, to the most absurd degree possible. So this bill doesn't live up to your own expectations of governance, why should it be fixed then?
 
What about people who feel that way about both parties? Do we have to fuck ourselves, too?

It depends. Are you wealthy? If not you are an idiot if you support economic policies supported by Republicans.
 
I'm middle class and its saved me about 120 bucks a month. No windfall. Its not changing my life but its literally the first time in my life (41 years old) that I feel like I have benefited at all from anything our government has done. (edit- actually Bill Clinton extended unemployment bennies at a time in my life when I couldn't find work, so there's that)

As not PC as it may sound, the important issues to me aren't poor people, racism and immigrants. Sorry if that offends people. Sorry that I have the unrealistic dream of our governing officials trying to make the best of things.
This is fair as I won't criticize people for voting in their own best interests, but I do have to burst your bubble a little bit. That $120 you're saving will decrease with each passing year and the Rs policy on healthcare (which is essentially nothing but repeal ACA), which includes repeal of the mandate, is going to cost most people whatever they've saved on taxes plus some.
 
This is fair as I won't criticize people for voting in their own best interests, but I do have to burst your bubble a little bit. That $120 you're saving will decrease with each passing year and the Rs policy on healthcare (which is essentially nothing but repeal ACA), which includes repeal of the mandate, is going to cost most people whatever they've saved on taxes plus some.

It fucking amazes me that this tax bill could even be seen remotely as being for the middle class.

You would think it would be made obvious when the corporate cuts are permanent while the individual cuts get phased out, but hey. Any "fix" that doesn't involve hiking corporate tax rates and making individual cuts isn't really a fix at all.
 
Yet you constantly champion the right. Typical so-called Libertarian. When the chips are down your true colors show.
You picked all that up about @Seano in the two months you've been here?

Some much needed life advice for you:

Getting banned from a forum, is kind of like getting dumped by a girlfriend. After it's happened, it's best to just move on with your life, rather than sticking around, refusing to let it go.

If you got banned, it meant that your relationship with the forum just wasn't working out. It's a sign that you need to move on with your life. Starting a new account comes across as desperate and petty.
 
It depends. Are you wealthy? If not you are an idiot if you support economic policies supported by Republicans.
Making your decisions based solely on how a policy affects you individually vice how you think it would affect the nation as a whole is selfish and borderline immoral imo.

The differences in the tax plan don't impact me in any appreciable way, so I couldn't really use that to make my decision even if I wanted to.
 
It fucking amazes me that this tax bill could even be seen remotely as being for the middle class.

You would think it would be made obvious when the corporate cuts are permanent while the individual cuts get phased out, but hey. Any "fix" that doesn't involve hiking corporate tax rates and making individual cuts isn't really a fix at all.
Yeah exactly. In addition to the fact you point out the great majority of savings go to corporations and high income individuals right off the bat. The right justifies it as "well, they pay more to begin with". Fine, but don't call this a middle class tax bill and be honest about what it is. Of course the truth is not popular, so here we are with dishonest spins about what it does.
 
It's also worth pointing out the obvious (to those paying attention) that Rs rammed this fucking thing through way too fast and without careful analysis and zero input from Ds. Rs refuse to operate on good faith.
Now you know how the R's felt when the ACA was passed.

Welcome to politics.
 
Back
Top