Not on themselves, anyway, not many people at least. But some of the superrich (Buffett, Cuban, others) are. For most, yes, it’s “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree.” But that’s not a responsible adult way to run a democracy.
“Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.” - Cheney
I think it’s more like the Republicans don’t want to spend money on some things like say medical care, and the Democrats do. Perhaps it is more argument over how to spend money.
Think you’re giving the GOP too much credit here. “I want a government small enough that we can drown it in a bathtub” was once a fringe opinion, now it’s official policy, hence the ongoing “Deconstruction of The Administrative State.”
Republicans are against government in basic principle. They’d be perfectly content with funding nothing other than the military and shrinking every other program and agency to the point that they exist only in theory. A shutdown is a convenient way of temporarily accomplishing their publicly vowed long term goals.
Altho yes, a few Billionaires are saying “out Taxes are too low” the Dems are not trying to raise taxes this time. That is a Trump lie.
They are certainly against giving any money to run government.
This … Sounds good …
In another thread, the Doper who said “the tax plan is very bad but it’s not a catastrophe” was very wrong. The kleptocrats are getting all they want with this bill. They don’t care about foreign policy or partial-birth abortions. They just want to steal as much money as they can as fast as they can. This tax bill will transfer, in round figures, at least a trillion dollars from the poor to the rich even if reversed with a better-informed electorate in 2018. If the GOP wins re-election this will be the biggest theft in all of history: several trillionS of dollars. Do the math, the average American will lose several thousands of dollars (long term including benefits) just to further enrich the already super-rich.
(And make no mistake: This isn’t about stimulus. Employment is still rising without this; and corporate profits continue to break records while the middle class loses spending power. And GOP anti-immigration measures will be counter-stimulus.)
Go on the blogs and airways and scream at the public about Russian collusion, lies from Mnuchin, Trump, etc. Make Trump the scapegoat. Shut down the government for real and make the public hate Trump and the whole GOP.
But …
Will it work? No, I doubt it. First: the GOP will get whatever it wants by going illegal and/or exercising “thermonuclear options.” Second: Lies can travel around the world while the truth is putting its pants on: The Koch-Fox Lie Machine will outwit much of the public. And Third: if things do get very bad — if Americans resort to civil disobedience to protest illegal government actions — then Trumpists will have a huge advantage: these are often mean-spirited people, and have much higher gun ownership numbers than the anti-Trumpists have.
GWB diverted trillions of dollars in public funds to waste and profiteer from munitions. The Ryan-Pence grab is just trillions more, this time funneled directly to the rich. Et cetera. All more of the same; American governance is failing and the public will be screwed.
Muammar Gaddafi stole many tens of billions of dollars from his country’s much smaller public treasury; compared with Libyans, U.S. citizens must grin and bear it and just consider themselves lucky.
Eisenhower believed that taxing businesses and corporations at high levels would cause them to avoid taxes by spending money on expanding, which would employ more people.
Were I a business owner, and received the described tax breaks, I would not hire more people or increase their wage, I would buy another house, or a boat. Perhaps an airplane and take flying lessons. There, that would contribute to employment, hiring a flight instructor!
If the real goal were to increase employment, some targeted tax breaks could make sense. The government could pay part of the employer’s contribution to SocSec in some cases, and/or improve subsidies for employer-provided health insurance. Employment would soar in targeted areas. Such breaks could be made revenue-neutral by restoring tax rates or by increasing the pro-environment gasoline tax.
But that would suppose that increasing environment was the goal of this gargantuan theft. Of course it isn’t; it’s just a blatant transfer from the working poor to the very rich with a few pokes-in-the-eye specific to liberal lifestyles (screwing grad students, screwing urban home-owners).
Susan Collins and John McCain had the chance to prove they were compassionate and intelligent humans first, and partisan hacks second, but were found wanting. Americans need to unite, and insist that their D-critters filibuster everything. When McConnell exercises thermonuclear options — and he will —, let us carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, America’s young people, with their power, wisdom and humanity, step forth to the rescue and the liberation of our threatened democracy.
Cite? You’ve brought this up a couple of times now, and I don’t understand where your $1T+ figure is coming from. Did you just make it up? Read it somewhere? Hear it on the radio?
The huge slash in corporate tax rates will cost the Treasury $100 billion annually or more, depending on whose assumptions you use. That’s a trillion over a decade. We may have to wait for all the handwriting to be OCR’ed before we know about all the other boondoggles in the Ryan-Hannity tax plan.
If you’re going to claim that the corporate tax cut is NOT for the super-rich but rather for Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack who have 9 and a half shares of Exxon in their retirement fund, Please give a Spoiler warning this time. I’m getting tired of cleaning coffee off my screen.
Here’s a page showing various estimates of the scope of this robbery. The CBO analysis is that “the cuts would add $1.414 trillion to the deficit by 2027;” three other estimates shown on that page are even larger.
And that’s just the estimated growth in Treasury debt. Recalling that much of the tax cuts for the rich will be offset by tax hikes on the working poor and middle class, the size of the theft is even greater.
Hope this helps.
A little bit. I still get hung up on this part: “it’s just a blatant transfer from the working poor to the very rich”. We’ve got estimates of how much it will add to the deficit, but those estimates don’t appear to say anything about transferring money from poor people to rich people. You said that “much of the tax cuts for the rich will be offset by tax hikes on the working poor and middle class”, but my understanding is that 1) the working poor and middle class haven’t really paid much in Federal income taxes for quite some time and
2) most of those that do (along with most of everyone else) are likely to see a decrease in their tax burden, not an increase.
Am I mistaken on either of those facts?
It depends. If the tax cuts on individuals are allowed to expire, there will likely be a slight increase in the tax burden of those with lower income. More troubling to me is how the repeal of the mandate might impact insurance markets for more vulnerable populations — it won’t be a tax increase but a negative effect nevertheless.
Some may also worry about adding to the nation’s deficit to in order to provide benefits mostly felt by the wealthy. Is that a transfer from the poor to the rich? Maybe if you squint, but I find it troubling either way.
Deficits only matter if a Democrat is President. If a Republican is President, deficits don’t matter.
Some parts of the plan are said to expire in five years. Does anyone know which?
The tax cuts are set to expire
In five years, but who knows for which?
In keeping with Right-wing desire
They certainly won’t for the rich!
No, but “We’re shutting the government down because the GOP is stealing from you to give to the rich” will probably play pretty well.
I suppose if you’re getting all your news from Fox News, you probably think this bill cuts your taxes. That’s fortunately far from a majority.
I don’t get all my news from Fox News, but I do think this bill will probably cut my taxes. Do you think I’m mistaken in that belief?
I’m pretty sure that with $4,000.00 in real estate taxes on two houses becomes non-deductible that we will get less money back. Our state income tax will no longer be deductible. So will people buying their home and previously deducting interest on the loan. Some students, good enough that their tuition is paid by a grant, will have that grant now counted as income. I bought my tenant a new oven. I hope I can continue to depreciate that, the furnace and A/C I bought for the tenant. The last would benefit a business, so perhaps I can.
Oh yes, your taxes will probably go down. And to the best of what I can figure, given that the final version of this is still being formulated, I’m probably going to have my taxes go up, since I live in a high local tax area.
I don’t mind paying more in taxes – we should try to bring our deficit and debt under control. But having people like me pay more in taxes, so that the revenue can offset estate tax elimination for the ultra-wealthy, is just plain bullshit.
It’s crystal clear to me that the only reason my tax bill is most likely to go up is to give bigger tax breaks to millionaires. I mean that literally.