The 2017/2018 Trump/GOP tax plan

[running_coach]

@Velocity

Is this bill eventually going to have a short, recognizable moniker, like how the ACA was ‘Obamacare?’

“ShitForCare”
“MoreExpensiveAndLessCarethanObamacareCare”

[Ravenman]

@D_Anconia

Is there a Constitutional requirement for X number of hours or days? No, there isn’t.

I don’t think you actually have any position to put forward on these topics other than to ask questions of liberals that you don’t actually care how they are answered. But if I infer something from what you’ve complained about in your last few posts, it is that:

1. 87 days is insufficient time to read the ACA bill;
2. And because it is, 5 hours is sufficient to read a major tax bill.

Is this your position or not?

Also, when the ACA passed with ONLY Democrat votes, that was apparently A-OK. But the Republicans passing a tax bill is partisan and not following “regular order.” (Generic) you can’t have it both ways.

Wait. You argued seconds ago that there’s no constitutional requirement for how long a bill should be available to read… and then go on to imply that the ACA should have had Republican votes? And as a factual matter, while the ACA did not get Republican votes, it contains Republican proposals. For example, the Grassley amendment requiring members of Congress to obtain health insurance on exchanges. For that matter, the stimulus bill also contained Republican proposals (primarily the tax cuts that constituted about a third of the cost of the bill) but didn’t get Republican votes.

Is there a provision in this tax bill that is a Democratic idea?

I, for one, have noticed a pattern in every argument you have made in this (and related) threads.

1. Pick out one sentence from a liberal poster and respond with a rhetorical question.
2. At every opportunity, manufacture a claim that liberal hypocrisy justifies conservative misdeeds.
3. Strenuously avoid putting forth your own position that can be evaluated and debated, probably out of fear of being proven wrong; and instead contribute endless questions and partisan innuendo.

So, I’m on to how this version of “debate” goes. But I’ll ask you a simple question: do you agree with the sponsors of the bill that this tax bill will pay for itself because of a massive stimulus it will give to the economy? A yes or no will suffice. No questions, please.

[Ravenman]

@Collect47

ACA for 87 days? Nope. The *Christmas Eve bill *was not “available for 87 days”. The famous quote that people could read it after it was passed is well-known. ("We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”.) And the Tax Bill has had a number of committee meetings which were boycotted by Democrats entirely. The main points of the new tax bill have, in fact, been widely disseminated and discussion for more than three months, and “in regular order.”

In fact, given the complexity of tax bills in the past, this one has had more discussion than many.

Cites for all of this, please. I’m happy to cite my arguments if you wish.

[septimus]

According to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the nation can afford a $1.5 trillion tax cut.
Asked about children’s health, he added, “We don’t have any money anymore.”

[The_Tooth]

He also said "I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves – won’t lift a finger – and expect the federal government to do everything.”

These people are all scumbags, as is anyone who supports them.

[elucidator]

All he want us to do is “lift a finger”? Well, shit, why didn’t he say so sooner? Here ya go, Orrin! This one’s for you!

[Ravenman]

@The_Tooth

He also said "I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves – won’t lift a finger – and expect the federal government to do everything.”

These people are all scumbags, as is anyone who supports them.

But but but don’t you know that Orrin Hatch was a janitor during college? Then he has spent the last forty years as a senator, and now he’s got a net worth of $4 million! And the Federal government has nothing to do with that!

[Bryan_Ekers]

Normally I’d have to watch highly specialized porn to see someone ask for and receive as massive a buttfucking as American voters are about to get.

[adaher]

@John_Mace

I think what’s worse is that:

The House races tend to be pretty safe, but Senate races are state-wide, and it might not take that many “undecided” + “disapproving” to swing an election or two. Americans are mostly not liking this bill and even Republicans are lukewarm.

Won’t make a difference on election day. Most taxpayers will see a tax cut, and no one’s voting against their own tax cut. The voters who will pay more are mostly upper middle class blue staters.

[John_Mace]

@adaher

Won’t make a difference on election day. Most taxpayers will see a tax cut, and no one’s voting against their own tax cut. The voters who will pay more are mostly upper middle class blue staters.

The election I was talking about happens before most people will know what their taxes are going to be. Which one are you talking about?

[running_coach]

@adaher

Won’t make a difference on election day. Most taxpayers will see a tax cut, and no one’s voting against their own tax cut. The voters who will pay more are mostly upper middle class blue staters.

So upper middle class red staters are somehow exempt? Got a cite for that?

[HurricaneDitka]

@John_Mace

The election I was talking about happens before most people will know what their taxes are going to be. Which one are you talking about?

If the plan passes, and if it takes effect in 2018, it will probably reduce the amount that a lot of people see withheld from their paychecks pretty quickly. In other words, they’ll see a direct benefit from the tax cut almost right away, even if they don’t know the exact final total of their taxes until early 2019.

[Bryan_Ekers]

And even if they see a drop in their taxes, they might not calculate the effect on their overall expenses, i.e. saving a few bucks by not paying the individual mandate or the penalties vs. having to pay a lot more for health insurance, possibly more than their tax cut.

Or just save money by going without health insurance completely and hoping for the best - make sure you wash your hands a lot.

[John_Mace]

@HurricaneDitka

If the plan passes, and if it takes effect in 2018, it will probably reduce the amount that a lot of people see withheld from their paychecks pretty quickly. In other words, they’ll see a direct benefit from the tax cut almost right away, even if they don’t know the exact final total of their taxes until early 2019.

Do most payroll systems work that way? It’s been so long since I was on one (been self-employed for years), I honestly don’t remember.

Even still, there are still quite a few Republican districts in nominally Democratic states and those Republicans can’t just ignore the higher earners who live there (and are more likely to vote than their poorer neighbors).

[Ravenman]

@HurricaneDitka

If the plan passes, and if it takes effect in 2018, it will probably reduce the amount that a lot of people see withheld from their paychecks pretty quickly. In other words, they’ll see a direct benefit from the tax cut almost right away, even if they don’t know the exact final total of their taxes until early 2019.

Yes, it is entirely possible that the typical $50,000 income household may see an average of $32 less in taxes each month.

And it is certain that there are a couple hundred children of the mega rich who will see inheritances that are millions more than they have heretofore planned on, making them remember the new yacht they are going to buy before heading to the polls eleven months from now.

[Bone]

@John_Mace

Do most payroll systems work that way? It’s been so long since I was on one (been self-employed for years), I honestly don’t remember.

Even still, there are still quite a few Republican districts in nominally Democratic states and those Republicans can’t just ignore the higher earners who live there (and are more likely to vote than their poorer neighbors).

It would take a bit of time for the IRS to update their withholding tables and then for various payroll service providers populate it to their various payroll clients. Not too long, probably weeks, not months. Once that is done, then it would be in effect and people would see it.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Velocity

Is this bill eventually going to have a short, recognizable moniker, like how the ACA was ‘Obamacare?’

Donorcare is catchy.

@adaher

Won’t make a difference on election day. Most taxpayers will see a tax cut, and no one’s voting against their own tax cut. The voters who will pay more are mostly upper middle class blue staters.

Great, so now we just pass laws to fuck over the states that voted for the other guy.

[RTFirefly]

@running_coach

“ShitForCare”
“MoreExpensiveAndLessCarethanObamacareCare”

“The Reverse Robin Hood, robbing everyone else to give to the rich.”

[RTFirefly]

@Ravenman

For that matter, the stimulus bill also contained Republican proposals (primarily the tax cuts that constituted about a third of the cost of the bill) but didn’t get Republican votes.

Nitpick: it got 3 GOP votes. Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter (who would shortly switch parties). The Dems didn’t have 60 Senators at that point, since Arlen was still in the GOP and Franken hadn’t been declared the winner in MN yet.

[monstro]

From Grassley: Ending estate tax ‘recognizes people that are investing,’ not ‘spending every darn penny’

@Senator Chuck Grassley

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

I’m not an economist. I’m not a policy wonk.

But it seems to me that this statement reveals the real motives of the GOP’s tax plan. “Let’s concentrate even more wealth in the hands of the already wealthy! And then justify our greed by ridiculing the people who create and stimulate all that wealth!”

If liberals painted a picture as ugly as Grassley’s but about rich people, they’d be accused of engaging in “class warfare”. But I guess it’s okay for Republicans to do it. I guess we’re all supposed to naturally loathe the guy that loves his beer, his women, and his movies–even if he works hard enough to afford them all. And even if that guy is us.