Earlier today, Trump was saying that cutting corporate taxes would mean $4000 for the average family. I thought he must be confusing his talking points, but no.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.223e6fef1454

I mean I guess if corporations save a ton of $$, and therefore Executives all get massive bonuses, average take home pay does increase.

The article Zimmer linked has basically the same information as the wapo article.

Mnuchin now rolling with "it's impossible to cut taxes without cutting rich people's taxes"

This ****ing guy

I mean, guys, it's almost like the whole ballgame here is giving money to the super rich, and all that talk about the middle class was insincere or something.

No way, that would mean all those voters were taken for suckers/idiots

That can't possibly be

Sanders & Cruz debating tax reform tonight on CNN, 6 pm pst

Maybe this belongs in the Tragic Death thread, but cannot believe I haven't heard a dem speaking up about how easy it is to give a tax cut to the working poor and middle class. Payroll tax cut paid for by increasing the top value of pay that is subject to payroll taxes is easy and obvious, lower the bottom marginal rate, increase eitc, etc.

Really digging that weasel language he uses. "Can afford higher wages" is the new "access to healthcare." Yes, obviously, they can afford to pay more, but will they? And why should they?

indeed, remove the social security cap and lower the rate.

we were told trump would hire the best and brightest, yet these guys can't figure out a way to give only the middle class a tax cut. imagine michael jordan not knowing how to do a layup.

Well they can't figure it out given the constraints imposed by the arcane reconciliation rules (because they cant get 60 votes) and the rules imposed by their rich donors. Its lile telling MJ to do a layup but the ball has to bounce 3 times and cross the halfway line and the basket is raised by 20ft.

If MJ's daughter was getting paid six figures by companies that hate layups to give keynote speeches, I can imagine him missing a few shots.

Correlation isn't causation and all that, but it sure looks like the disconnect begins right around the time organized labor started to decline.

What are the chances republicans add a rider to this bill strengthening the wire act.

So the current GOP strategy is to give this bill even less debate than the health care bill, to give people even less of a chance to figure out what's in it. I think it will work.

I don't see any GOPers voting against tax cuts in the senate. I also don't think it hurts them politically.

Increasing taxes on unearned income is likely a better strategy to redistribute wealth from the top.[0]

Raising the SS income limit is mostly just fisting upper middle class working people whose income is already subject to very high marginal rates. Scrooge McDuck should be the target here; not his well paid lackeys.

[0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2207372

Obviously. I fully support taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income. I was just throwing out some obvious stuff Dems could do without even pissing off their own donors.

That's the entire problem with our political system today.

IMO the Democratic Party should adopt the exact opposite philosophy. A simple heuristic: Whatever our the donor class wants us to do lets pursue the opposite. We could even call it the Constanza Doctrine.

The problems facing the US today: healthcare costs; decades of flat income for pretty much everyone but the mega elite in the face of sky rocketing essential living costs; a looming retirement crisis so large it's almost intractable, which btw is only going to be exacerbated by the near lock that equity returns in the medium term are going to be lackluster in the best case; high debt levels; etc. are not going to be solved by piddly incremental change.

Take for example the ACA. It's largest failure is lack of ambition. Whatever the moment was the decision was made not to address the root cause of costs in the healthcare system the ACA sealed it's fate right then. Full stop.

Politically the decision to go with a half hearted plan was terrible as well. Once the ACA passed, the Democrats owned health care from that point on. My provider has announced a 43% rate increase next year. I know that the majority of the increase is due to Trump threatening and finally eliminating insurer subsidies....but good luck explaining that to my friend ( and millions like him) who last year was paying 1500 dollars a month for a family of four with 6500/person deductible. Had he not changed jobs recently ( a job of 20 years, that he had to leave b/c the employer all but eliminated insurance subsidies after the ACA ) they would have been looking at an additional 700 dollars out of pocket each month. Good luck explaining the nuances of health care politics to people who are worried about how they are going to save for retirement, pay their bills, etc. b/c rising premiums have absorbed any monthly cushion they had.

We are facing huge domestic problems.....mealy mouthed half hearted legislation that 'keeps the donors happy' is merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

"Politically the decision to go with a half hearted plan was terrible as well."

I think AT THE TIME it was defensible. The thought that a huge program of any kind is going to be ideal at the first attempt is sort of silly - Medicare looks nothing like what it started out as. Throwing something against the wall, seeing what sticks and moving forward is pretty normal - ESPECIALLY when you think you're pretty much a lock to win the next election, and Clinton can make changes. Of course, if you screw the pooch and lose to an Orange clown......not so good.

MM MD

I didn't say it needed be perfect out of the box. It just needed to address the root cause and not the symptoms.

If the following chart isn't a clear trend then I don't know what is.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...P?locations=US

The chart shows a clear trend that slowed down around 2010, wonder why.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/1...ul-ryan-243996

LOL if you actually believe the rich will be paying more.

Exactly. They can make the top marginal rate either 35% or 99% and neither will matter as long as the pass through rate is 25%.

The house bill apparently caps 401k contributions at $2,400.

I don't even. Six months ago I would have said this is suicide, but who knows.