Senate Tax Bill Passes - at 2:00 AM (EST)

[Jack V Savage]

Fortunately it isn’t the same. It isn’t law yet and has one, technically two, more steps to go
And do you think the Aca was bad? Did you post how bad it was when they did this?

First, you compared total debt growth to debt growth as a result of a specific piece of legislation. And then, the ACA has drastically reduced debt.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Senate rush to pass it and fucked up AMT removal. AMT and Corporate rate is both 20% now. House bill completely eliminated the AMT. So now they HAVE to go to committee rather than the Senate all but forcing the House to pass their bill as is. House will remove AMT from the Senate bill, but in doing so will add 60B to the "cost" add it to the debt/deficit. And if the bill costs a penny more than $1.5T or adds a penny to the deficit outside of 10 years it had to pass through Senate cloture vote first - meaning 60 votes.

Trump has indicated he could support raising the corporate rate to 22% from the current 20% in both House and Senate bills to pay for the AMT removal, but that is already getting push back because 20% was the highest rate the pols said they could accept that would encourage corporations not to run from US. Even 2% higher they believe would be all the impetus these companies would need to leave or remain away.

If it comes back to the Senate they could lose a couple of Rs on the next vote.

 

[cincymma79]

First, you compared total debt growth to debt growth as a result of a specific piece of legislation. And then, the ACA has drastically reduced debt.

No you did that. I said this 1.5 is nothing compared to the other 20, half of which camenin the last eight years. Nobody had a problem with that then but NOW the debt matters.

 

[curryjunkie]

Your US Senator from Iowa Ladies and Gents -

“I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley said, “as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”
​

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...tax-reform-iowa-farmers-estate-tax/906946001/

If you don't have a $5.5M Estate it's because you're wasteful with money and you too could be rich enough to have to worry about he Estate Tax if you just didn't drink, go to movies or frequent prostitutes. $5.5M worth of booze and women would be one helluva bender - not sure you'd remember the movies.

to be fair , not everyone gets their booze and women courtesy of lobbying firms, and wasteful spending on those smartphones could get fantastic healthcare...

 

[kpt018]

No you did that. I said this 1.5 is nothing compared to the other 20, half of which camenin the last eight years. Nobody had a problem with that then but NOW the debt matters.

What do you mean? The GOP would not shut the fuck up about the debt for Obama's 8 years and now suddenly it does not matter to the GOP.

The left has been pretty clear about deficits and debt. They don't want it to hit an level in which it is in fact a problem but they can justify deficits when they think they're worth the costs and they always work on pay fors. Bernie types would raise taxes, some wants cuts to military spending, etc..

The right is simply lying about this tax cut. Also, the recession had a little bit to do with adding the debt, right?

 

[Jack V Savage]

No you did that.

Where?

I said this 1.5 is nothing compared to the other 20, half of which camenin the last eight years. Nobody had a problem with that then but NOW the debt matters.

We want higher deficits in the short term when we're in a recession and interest rates are as low as they can go. What possible benefit is there to greatly increasing deficits permanently at a time when the economy is doing well? Also, your point actually does work in reverse (you guys were pretending to be sooo concerned about deficits but now that concern has suddenly disappeared, and you're cheering on much worse increases than the ones you pretended to regard as terrible).

 

[HunterSdVa29]

so everyone complaining now...why so quiet in January when they agreed on no more than 1.5T in tax cuts?

what about the 10T that was already going to be added over the next decade due to policies out of Trump's control?

nothing?

 

[kpt018]

so everyone complaining now...why so quiet in January when they agreed on no more than 1.5T in tax cuts?

what about the 10T that was already going to be added over the next decade due to policies out of Trump's control?

nothing?

I'm not complaining, primarily, about the $1.5T in deficits because the regressive nature of it and the impacts on healthcare are more serious IMO. But what are you referring to with the 10T? If you're more specific it can be discussion worthy.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I'm not complaining, primarily, about the $1.5T in deficits because the regressive nature of it and the impacts on healthcare are more serious IMO. But what are you referring to with the 10T? If you're more specific it can be discussion worthy.

per a Yahoo Finance article:
The agreement would represent an about-face for Capitol Hill GOP leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who for months have promised that the GOP tax overhaul would not add to the budget deficit, currently estimated to hit about $700 billion this year. Deficits over the coming decade were already projected to add $10 trillion to the debt.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gop-panel-divided-red-ink-tax-cuts-143637332--politics.html

 

[kpt018]

per a Yahoo Finance article:
The agreement would represent an about-face for Capitol Hill GOP leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who for months have promised that the GOP tax overhaul would not add to the budget deficit, currently estimated to hit about $700 billion this year. Deficits over the coming decade were already projected to add $10 trillion to the debt.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gop-panel-divided-red-ink-tax-cuts-143637332--politics.html

I'm not clear on what your beef is. Do you want current leadership to do something about it? Obviously if you think it's a problem that would be the solution.

 

[Strychnine]

I really hope that they can't agree on this and force it to die before it gets to the desk of the President.

It's slim, but there IS a chance...

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I'm not clear on what your beef is. Do you want current leadership to do something about it? Obviously if you think it's a problem that would be the solution.

No, I don't think it's as big a problem as others do

I just find it hilarious that the specific 1.5T is some staggeringly huge amount, when our current system is projected to add almost 7x that much already...

 

[kpt018]

No, I don't think it's a big a problem as others do

I just find it hilarious that the specific 1.5T is some staggeringly huge amount, when our current system is projected to add almost 7x that much already...

Well if people think the deficit is a problem they will think adding to it is a problem. And people can certainly feel that it isn't a problem at the current level but it can be at higher levels.

I'm not seeing the problem you have with people's thinking here. The biggest complaint I'm seeing from the left is the actual substance of the bill, but they're pointing out the hypocrisy of the right on deficits, who are the party that won't stop bringing up deficits when the left is in power but conveniently abandon the idea when the right is in power.

The left would be happy add a reasonable amount to the deficit for stuff they believe in, like improving healthcare, strengthen the safety net, etc.. But as I already said they look for pay-fors to help cover the cost and are willing to increase taxes.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Well if people think the deficit is a problem they will think adding to it is a problem. And people can certainly feel that it isn't a problem at the current level but it can be at higher levels.

I'm not seeing the problem you have with people's thinking here. The biggest complaint I'm seeing from the left is the actual substance of the bill, but they're pointing out the hypocrisy of the right on deficits, who are the party that won't stop bringing up deficits when the left is in power but conveniently abandon the idea when the right is in power.

The left would be happy add a reasonable amount to the deficit for stuff they believe in, like improving healthcare, strengthen the safety net, etc.. But as I already said they look for pay-fors to help cover the cost and are willing to increase taxes.

well it's one thing to build a deficit by giving away free stuff to poor people......that was unearned

it's another to add to a deficit by cutting taxes, in their minds increasing economic output by having more to spend (I doubt this will work, but I don't care about poor people so oh well). This is more akin to the stimulus

Removing the ACA mandate was the best part of this bill to me

 

[kpt018]

well it's one thing to build a deficit by giving away free stuff to poor people......that was unearned

it's another to add to a deficit by cutting taxes, in their minds increasing economic output by having more to spend (I doubt this will work, but I don't care about poor people so oh well). This is more akin to the stimulus

Even the most conservative analysis is showing the growth as a result of this bill is minimal and in fact over the long term negative. It's not wise to pass it now and it will hurt our ability to fight off a recession when one comes.

I won't address the "giving free stuff to poor people" since that's a silly way to look at it and not seriously addressing those problems.

Removing the ACA mandate was the best part of this bill to me

And probably the worst part for me. It will cause a lot of disruption in healthcare and raise premiums on people who do want insurance. And it's a terrible way to address the problem. This was a throw in added to a fucking tax bill to help offset cuts, so I get it. But you need a healthcare bill that addresses the issues this will cause. It's a very bad part of the bill.

 

[DangDaGawd]

No you did that. I said this 1.5 is nothing compared to the other 20, half of which camenin the last eight years. Nobody had a problem with that then but NOW the debt matters.

You had a problem with it then, but now the debt doesn't matter.

 

[curryjunkie]

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well if people think the deficit is a problem they will think adding to it is a problem. And people can certainly feel that it isn't a problem at the current level but it can be at higher levels.

I'm not seeing the problem you have with people's thinking here. The biggest complaint I'm seeing from the left is the actual substance of the bill, but they're pointing out the hypocrisy of the right on deficits, who are the party that won't stop bringing up deficits when the left is in power but conveniently abandon the idea when the right is in power.

The left would be happy add a reasonable amount to the deficit for stuff they believe in, like improving healthcare, strengthen the safety net, etc.. But as I already said they look for pay-fors to help cover the cost and are willing to increase taxes.

I think that there's a big sense on the left that they got played. They took Republican concerns about debt at face value and actually adjusted policy to take it into account (one of the reasons the ACA is what it is is that Obama had insisted that it be deficit-reducing). The MSM was also hammering liberals on deficits, and Democratic voters, unlike Republican voters, respond to MSM attacks. So now, when we're at a situation where you'd want deficit reduction, Republicans are doing more to increase deficits than Democrats ever did, it's become completely clear that they were lying the whole time.

But, yeah, debt fears are a little overblown. The really bad thing is that the bill is a huge giveaway to the rich paid for by raising taxes on everyone making less than $75K (and doesn't really benefit people making less than $500K) and borrowing. The growth effect will probably be a small bump in the short term followed by a drag in the longer term. That's not even looking at all the fucked up incentive effects. Horrible bill all around aside from the debt effects.

 

[kpt018]

I think that there's a big sense on the left that they got played. They took Republican concerns about debt at face value and actually adjusted policy to take it into account (one of the reasons the ACA is what it is is that Obama had insisted that it be deficit-reducing). The MSM was also hammering liberals on deficits, and Democratic voters, unlike Republican voters, respond to MSM attacks. So now, when we're at a situation where you'd want deficit reduction, Republicans are doing more to increase deficits than Democrats ever did, it's become completely clear that they were lying the whole time.

But, yeah, debt fears are a little overblown. The really bad thing is that the bill is a huge giveaway to the rich paid for by raising taxes on everyone making less than $75K (and doesn't really benefit people making less than $500K) and borrowing. The growth effect will probably be a small bump in the short term followed by a drag in the longer term. That's not even looking at all the fucked up incentive effects. Horrible bill all around aside from the debt effects.

I'd bet that is certainly true and unfortunate, because I actually do want to see fiscally responsible policy. If the left wants healthcare reform, free college, etc. I personally love that they work hard to pay for those benefits. I don't have a reason to believe they'd change on that front but I do fear a situation where both parties are capable of getting us into a position in which the debt is actually a problem.

Yeah, the tax cut on substance is a total dumpster fire. I think that's why aside from lying there is no serious defense of it (at least that I've seen and I follow pretty closely).

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'd bet that is certainly true and unfortunate, because I actually do want to see fiscally responsible policy. If the left wants healthcare reform, free college, etc. I personally love that they work hard to pay for those benefits. I don't have a reason to believe they'd change on that front but I do fear a situation where both parties are capable of getting us into a position in which the debt is actually a problem.

Yeah, the tax cut on substance is a total dumpster fire. I think that's why aside from lying there is no serious defense of it (at least that I've seen and I follow pretty closely).

I really think we'll see Democrats chill out on the pay-fors as a result of this, and like you say, that could be bad. I'd favor a little less diligence there, but, yeah, it's totally possible that debt could become a problem, and at the very least, high levels mean there will always be pressure to kill programs.

The GOP is officially as divorced from economic reality as they are from climate reality. Good piece on it from Jon Chait:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/the-republican-war-on-economics.html

On Meet the Press Sunday, Chuck Todd asked Susan Collins how she could support a huge tax cut after having complained about excessive debt. “Economic growth produces more revenue and that will help to offset this tax cut and actually lower the debt,” she calmly replied. An incredulous Todd asked Collins how she could defend such a claim when every study has concluded the opposite. She cited Glenn Hubbard, Larry Lindsey, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

Jennifer Rubin got ahold of two of the three, Hubbard and Holtz-Eakin. Both economists denied having ever claimed the Republican tax cuts would produce enough growth to recoup the lost revenue.

This is a small moment that reveals a great deal about the relation of the Republican Party to the field of economics. Hubbard and Holtz-Eakin represent the right wing of the economic profession. Both of them have long worked closely with the party and have deep sympathy to its ideological orientation. Collins, on the other hand, represents the left wing of the Republican Party. She is indisputably the most moderate — and, arguably, the only moderate — member of her Senate caucus. And yet, on taxes, she maintains a position farther right than any serious economist can maintain. The beliefs of Republican officials and real economists are non-overlapping circles on a Venn diagram.