This is what a Congressman from New York called it during an NPR interview I heard yesterday.
Adding: He is a Republican and is voting no due to his constituents losing their state and local tax deductions.
Didn’t they call it a middle class tax cut?
My understanding is that the estate tax accounts for a minuscule fraction of federal revenue. In other words, I don’t think “the money” (at least the money that the feds are getting today) is coming from people with $20 million estates, at least not via the estate tax.
That’s certainly the most common way I see it done. Are you suggesting we should not because that’s unfavorable to people in the Bay Area, NYC, and DC?
0.6% of all federal revenue is still a pretty good chunk of change in absolute terms, nearly $20 billion.
Still, it’s interesting to see conservatives dismissing this as a minuscule amount not worth worrying about. I’ll bear that in mind next time I see conservative posters howling that some federal expenditure of less than $20 billion is irresponsible extravagance.
First off, there’s a pretty big disconnect between the $3.3T the feds take in as revenue and the $4T they spend, and I’d encourage you to keep that in mind. Secondly, I’m not suggesting we need not worry about anything less than $20 billion. Obviously, that’s a huge chunk of money, and only really looks like chump change when stacked up against the massive federal budget. I was suggesting that if we’re worried about “where the money is”, at least in terms of federal takings, it’s not, by-and-large, in the estate tax.
That’s not a very good reason for cutting off this revenue stream. I doubt food stamps cost more than the estate tax brings in, but there has been a lot of howling about cutting that. And if .6% is so small, can’t we cut the military budget by even that much? Even .6% No? Why not?
In terms of “where the money is”, student loan paying individuals aren’t rich. People with $20 million estates are. A tax cut for the rich one and a tax increase for the poor one makes no sense.
SNAP is actually a $70 billion dollar program. But the estate tax would cover 29% of it. I would rather feed hungry people who are alive then make sure rich people save money after they die.
Quick googling tells me that the SNAP program (food stamps) cost $70 billion in 2016, so, triple or quadruple the estate tax receipts, just using Kimstu’s number.
It’s Wrong Week over here at the Comprehensive house. Fine, $70 bn. Seeing how we’re $20T in the hole, why are we even discussing cutting taxes on people with $20 million estates? Because of the lie that this will magically increase revenue?
That’s what they called it, but now define “middle class.”
If it helps the poor, that’s great. If it helps the rich, I don’t mind, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. The middle class are the ones who really support the economy, they are the ones who work the jobs, own the small businesses.
The .01% are not going to notice that you gave them another few percent back on their taxes. Sure, that’s millions of dollars, and could pay for programs or tax cuts for those not as fortunate, but it’s a drop in the bucket to them. They aren’t going to suddenly be able to afford to send their kids to college because of that cut.
There are times when cutting taxes on the wealthiest would spur the economy, those are times when the supply is down, and the demand is up. This is not one of those times. Demand is down, and there is ample supply of all goods and services. Putting more money in the pockets of the wealthy will not spur them to hire a single new employee.
But putting money in the hands of consumers, who will increase the demands for the products, will.
I define rich as the amount of discretionary money they have left behind.
I had a friend who lived on staten island. Born there, planned to die there. Complained daily about the cost of everything.
Then Sandy came along, and destroyed his home and everything in it, so he moved. Where did he move? To Tennessee.
So, suddenly, his cost of living plummeted, and though he was receiving the same amount of money, he had far more discretionary income. He described himself as being far richer than he had ever been, even though he was not making a dime more.
So, yes, you do need to take into account the local costs of living in order to tell what kinds of discretionary incomes someone has. Someone could be making half the wages in tennessee of that of someone in bay valley, but still have far more money left over for personal use.
An easy way to take into account some of the local costs of living differences is through the SALT exemptions, the mortgage deduction, and other itemizable deductions that involve the cost of living.
Now, you could say, well, why don’t they move then? And that’s a great question, and one that I ask myself, when it comes to people being upset about local policies or taxes, as those local policies and taxes are what makes the community they are in worth living in. But, encouraging people to move away from the dense areas where there are jobs and services to be done, to get them to move to red states with far fewer opportunities to use their skills productively, will not be good for them, or for the country overall.
And I still don’t see how getting rid of the student loan interest deduction is a middle class tax cut. That one is going to fall most squarely on the middle class, completely wiping out the piddly $400ish “average” tax decrease.
You’re avoiding the heart of the question: are you in favor of increasing taxes on people who live paycheck to paycheck, so that billionaires can pass down more money to their children?
It appears you are, so long as those living paycheck to paycheck are people that tend to vote Democratic.
NYC is expensive because people want to live there. They don’t have to live there. Your friend could have moved to TN years earlier, but chose not to. There are people working in Manhattan who live as far as southern Bucks County, PA, and everywhere in between. So cost of living has a large personal choice component.
I live in a very expensive area too, but that’s my choice. Yes, the one-bedroom apartment I moved out of last year now goes for $2500/month. But that doesn’t make me less well-off (I wouldn’t call myself rich, but YMMV.)
You might want to phrase that differently; I know people who make more than me who live paycheck to paycheck. Stupid people, IMO.
Have we actually heard him express concern over bankrupting the Republican poor? If not I’m not sure this specific partisan dig is justified.
Honestly, while it does seem like this tax bill has some things in it intended specifically to flip double birds at the Democratic wealthy and middle class (due to the regions they’re in), my vague impression is that the poor will all be screwed equally in an admirably non-partisan way.
Your ‘heart of the question’ is based on a faulty premise, I think. We’re not talking about “increasing taxes on people”. Excepting a small % of edge cases, most people are going to get a tax cut under this plan. Rich people, poor people, people who live paycheck to paycheck, and people that save and live within their means. At least, that’s my understanding, based off both the Tax Foundation links I’ve provided earlier in this thread, as well as the WaPo fact checker article that said this:
So, if eliminating the estate tax is part of the deal that gets this broad middle-class tax cut passed, I’ll accept it. It’s not a pet issue of mine or anything - I could take it or leave it - but I’m certainly not going to cut off my nose to spite my face and oppose the measure that saves me and most of my neighbors money just because it also saves some rich people money.
People want to live near new york because that’s where the jobs are. The jobs are there because that’s where work needs to be done. If everyone up and left New York, would the country be better or worse off for it?
And my friend couldn’t have moved sooner, as he was stuck in his house. Couldn’t sell it, and couldn’t buy a house elsewhere without selling it. Sandy was, in some ways, a blessing to him, in that it let him get out of a house he could not have otherwise.
I don’t know how many other people are in that sort of situation, where moving is not an easy option for them, but it is less an issue for those better off. Those better off have options that the poorer do not. You may know people working as lawyers or whatnot in manhattan that live that far away, but do you know any mcdonald’s employees that can afford to live a hundred miles from work?
And only a small percentage of estates pay any estate tax.
For those who are pointing out that this plan will have varying effects on the middle class (some will pay more, some will pay less), is that true at other income levels; among the very wealthy (top 1%, 5%, whatever) will some of them pay more, and some pay less, as well?
i get the impression that some folks are deeply distressed at the idea of the rich paying less, merely for the sake of them having a lessened burden - not for the sake of more tax revenue, or “fair share,” or anything like that - but just distressed at the idea of the wealthy paying less, period. Like every additional million dollars in some fat cat’s Swiss bank account or hedge fund is a needle that jabs them personally.