So, wealthy people have bribed Senators and Congressmen to pass a law that lowers their tax burden. Could there be almost anything else in government any more venal? Oh, I forgot, the NRA bribed the same folks to protect their ability to sell guns. I don’t know, I can’t decide which is worse.
“We promised” is going to be on a bunch of Republican tombstones come 2018 and 2020
Will someone explain to me the situation involving the Trillions that companies have ‘parked’ overseas? Why would companies ‘repatriate’ these retained earnings if they could be used overseas where taxes are lower? Why is this such a complicated thing? Why should a company pay taxes on overseas earnings? Why not let them operate all over the world and pay taxes only on domestic activity? If the company, overall, increases in value and the stock price rises, then get the capital gains tax when the stock is sold (no exceptions for estates) and tax the dividends (reinvested or not).
That would almost make it worth it.
It’s pretty sad to think that was done under a Republican president and the best we can get under a Democrat is 40% top rate for individuals.
Why is $1,500,000,000,000 additional debt allowable though? Because that is just the number they all agreed upon? It could have been anything, right? I can see the day coming where a simple majority will be enough to pass any legislation, not because of the filibuster elimination, but because the reconciliation rules will be stretched to be virtually meaningless.
I couldn’t quickly find exactly what the reason is for why it’s that specific number.
Excerpted from
“Passing a budget resolution would be a critical step for President Trump and Republican lawmakers in moving forward with their plan to overhaul the tax code. The parliamentary language in the resolution would allow Republicans to pass tax cuts that cost as much as $1.5 trillion over the next decade with only 50 votes in the Senate, not the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. Republican leaders concede that without a budget, there will be no tax cut.”
“The budget resolution released on Friday does foresee a balanced budget within 10 years — but only by assuming trillions of dollars in unspecified spending cuts and projecting higher economic growth than is forecast by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.”
“The budget resolution, essentially a blueprint for federal revenues and spending for the 2018 fiscal year that begins on Sunday and beyond, lays the groundwork for approving a tax bill using special procedures that would shield it from a Democratic filibuster. Republicans used the same strategy in their failed effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.”
And the The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence bribed congresscritters to ban guns.
Is there a name for this rhetorical tactic?
Last time I saw it, it was used in a discussion about size of gun magazines. Something like “Why 13 bullets, rather than 12 or 14?” in a push to say that ANY magazine restriction was wrong (except I don’t recall exact numbers). So is there a name for this type of argument that depends on this kind of line-drawing? I was thinking “slippery slope”, but that doesn’t seem right to me.
“The fallacy is the argument that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states.”
It is also illustrated by the penny jar example: imagine a big jar full of coins. Take one out. Is it still full? Sure. Take another out. Is it still full? I guess. Continue taking coins out and asking the question… Eventually, enough coins are taken out to consider the jar not full… and then you put one back in. Is the jar now full again?
This fallacy is among my favorite flavors of bullshit.
The argument isn’t that a line cannot be drawn - it is that it ought not be drawn. While the former may be fallacious in some instances, the latter is certainly not.
But the argument usually runs, “Where do you draw the line? Why here and not there? So you shouldn’t. “
This argument may look like “ought not be drawn”, but it rests on the continuum fallacy, at least often.
I’m not disputing your argument on this grounds, Bone. While I disagree with you, I think you have made it pretty clear that you aren’t fretting over where the line is drawn. You just have an aversion to taxing estates, which seems to me largely emotional.
FWIW- I think Life Insurance receives favorable tax treatment partly to reward the concept of such planning ahead (rather than leave your dependents as wards of the state), partly to help planning (otherwise you’d have to buy insurance trying to guess what the after tax figure might be), and partly to avoid kicking grieving families (many who will face economic hardship despite the insurance settlement) in the teeth. I’m guessing insurance lobbies may have had a hand, as well.
Well, see that thing on the end of the barrell? That’s the Alternative Impalement Instrument Flange AZ-34. (Commonly referred to as a “bayonet”.)
It’s presence makes the weapon an “assault rifle”. The absence of such a flange means it is a deer rifle. People who not understand such essential facts are unqualified to have an opinion.
You’ve argued for a flat tax in this thread in the principle that it is fairer for rich people to pay the same tax rate on their fortunes that poor people pay on their pittances. That’s a principle that you are espousing.
The other poster does not agree with you that it is possible to distinguish between earned income, an estate, and costs necessary for the care of a dependent child; and quite clearly said that people are unable to determine whether a progressive income tax is fair.
You are making different arguments, and you are not relying on a continuum fallacy. You’re just espousing an unpopular view. 
The reason for taxing the rich is very simple: That’s where the money is.
Even flat taxers agree, IIRC, that the first $X of income should not be taxed at all. IOW they accept the idea of two brackets {0 and 10%} but are unwilling to extrapolate the principle further.
I don’t understand this refusal. By accepting the first threshold, they acknowledge that children’s essential nutrition is “worth” more, dollar for dollar, than a billionaire’s caviar but, by disallowing further thresholds, they fail to acknowledge that a middle-class occasional steak is also worth more, dollar for dollar, than the billionaire’s caviar.
The GOP plan is intended as a huge transfer of wealth and income from the working poor and middle class to the rich. It is very sad, but typical in Trumpian America, that many have fallen for the FoxNews claim that the cut is intended to help the middle class.
Because its not always easy to figure out what taxable income is for a particular taxpayer. If you only look at the brackets, everyone except the very bottom of the scale gets a tax break.
The irrational and impotent opposition to the second amendment is what allows enough Republican to get elected and pass these sort of tax laws.
Even McConnell admitted he lied.
Subpart F defers US taxation until it is repatriated. The last time they gave taxpayers this sort of break under GW Bush, it raised billions in revenue as companies took advantage of what was essentially a tax holiday to repatriate a shit ton of dollars to the US and then proceeded to sit on the cash.
Can anybody really comprehend a trillion dollars, let alone multi-trillions. How on God’s good Earth have they been able to accumulate so much money? It seems to fly in the face of a “hostile tax environment” where these corporations are over taxed. Trillions it seems the opposite is true.
Fuck me, if only. Lemme check my taxes from last year, to see how bad the damage will get. I had a $29k stipend and $50k in tuition remission.
Filing singly in 2016, that works out to $2333 in federal taxes. According to this calculator, under the new tax plan I’d pay $10900 in federal taxes. An email I got from the university puts the estimated tax even higher, at $11650. Once I add in FICA and state taxes, that means I go from a take-home pay of $1980/month down to $1200/month.
I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that this would decimate US science and higher education. This can’t be intentional, can it? Even the anti-science crusaders like Lamar Smith think there’s some value in engineering and biomedical research… right?
Absolutely blistering condemnation of the tax plan by Representative Larson on the House floor. Puts the shenanigans involved with trying to pass this with 0 hearings into context compared to the last time major tax reform was attempted, with 50 odd hearings and 450 expert testimonies before it came up for a vote.
In case you’re wondering, when he says “24-16” he’s referring to the fact that a motion to add back in the deduction for medical expenses was defeated on a vote of 24 to 16.