I would suggest that the father of whataboutism is actually “but these aren’t the same things-ism.”
If whataboutism is bad, then making only relevant comparisons would be good. So not the father, but maybe the arch rival.
Trying to stay focused here - Does your view about corporate loss carryforwards have anything to do with the amount of taxes paid by lower income people or households? Like, if lower income households paid X, then loss carryforwards would be good. But if lower income households paid Y, then loss carryoforwards would be bad? Because unless you believe something along these lines, then introducing the comparison is a distraction at best.
The merits or demerits of loss carry forwards stands on their own. Otherwise we could complain about every provision of the tax bill by saying,* HP paid no federal income taxes in 2015, so provision XYZ is bad!*
Not to nitpick a friendly post, but we need to ask ourselves what is a “healthy poor.” Someone who doesn’t climb ladders? Doesn’t work manual labor? Doesn’t drive a car? Has the consideration to die quickly and easily before they get old?
People have some control over their health, but if you ever leave your home or do any real work, you have exposure to health care risk. There’s no such thing as a permanently healthy person.
I’m generally of the opinion that if rules lead to absurd outcomes like corporations get to avoid taxes on billions of profits, the internal consistency and logic of the rules deserve to be questioned, as opposed to relied upon to justify the result of the rules themselves.
They are healthy before they fall off a ladder or are run over by a forklift.
I agree with this. There’s also a long history of NOL carrybacks and carryforwards, over which time the time frames in each have been adjusted. The current 2 and 20 years respectively wasn’t always so, and whether those time frames are a good idea or not is certainly debatable. Certainly the types of losses can be considered too - perhaps only R&D expenses should be eligible to recognize long lead times. The overall concept itself I think is sound. Here’s a snippet of analysis:
We have data! Quinnipiac poll released 12/5/2017.
Question 16. As you may know, Congress must pass a new spending bill by December 8th in order to prevent a government shutdown, which then must be signed by President Trump. If a government shutdown does occur, who would you blame more: Republicans in Congress, Democrats in Congress, or President Trump?
Results:
Republicans 31%
Democrats 31%
President Trump 26%
Don’t know/no answer 12%
Breakdowns by subgroups available at the link.
Yeah, but that data is boring.
So what?
If voting mattered, they wouldn’t let us do it.
So 31% of Americans are utterly clueless. Fascinating. Or is perhaps the Democrats fault for having Obama elected, which result in Trump being elected, which if it results in a gov’t shutdown, ipso facto presto chango is the Democrats fault.
From what I heard on NPR, the Democrats want federal spending to fund DACA. I would guess that Republicans blame Democrats for that. They aren’t clueless, they are wealthy or just hate furriners.
Interesting that they included Trump as a separate option from Republicans as a whole. Or is it? Did polling during the shutdowns under Obama list him as distinct from the Democratic party?
The question is: “If a government shutdown does occur, who would you blame more: Republicans in Congress, Democrats in Congress, or President Trump?”
Yes, I understand that. I’m wondering if, in previous government shutdowns under Obama, the polling was, “Do you blame Democrats, Republicans, or President Obama?” Or if it was just, “Do you blame Democrats or Republicans,” with the assumption that blaming Obama was the same as blaming the Democrats, and vice versa.
Utterly clueless might be a liitle harsh. I just don’t understand how the Democrats can be to blame when the GOP control everything. Or is this one of those situations where the minority party can prevent passage of a bill? Then I could understand the logic a little in that case.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
This is exactly the situation. Democrats can filibuster the bill in the Senate.
In addition, there are a number of Republican House members who will never vote for a debt ceiling increase under any circumstance. So to pass one, you need a few Democrats in the House.
In that case, if the Republicans make an honest effort to work with Democrats and the Democrats filibuster, then I can see a case being made for it being the Democrats fault. Based on the events of the past year, I think it unlikely the Republicans will make an honest effort to work with Democrats but I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
No, that’s the 31% that will blame democrats for everything. I assume that there is considerable overlap between that group, and the group that blames dems for trump.
They probably don’t have to. If the republicans can’t even muster 50 votes for it, not really the dems fault.
Personally, I would like to see funding to not have a filibuster, as the minority party shouldn’t be able to shut down the govt on a whim, and I would oppose the dems filibustering this bill.
OTOH, if the republicans can’t get together enough votes to pass it, I don’t think the dems should help them without some sort of concessions.
This is true, but I’m not sure exactly what that number is. Republicans have a pretty significant majority, so they can afford to lose something like 20 Republicans on a vote and still pass it through the House. So … I’m not sure if this:
is correct or not. We’ll soon know though.