Cue the Headlines:
Who Gains from the Tax Plan? Economists Face Off

Reminiscent of
Global Warming? Scientists Face Off

I don't see much that affects personal tax rates in the Senate bill. Tax brackets are very similar. Small savings ranging between nothing and up to ~5k at the most for anyone below the super rich. That's assuming taxable income remains the same. The ones who save the most are most likely to have their taxable income increased thanks to the elimination of deductions. So the net effect seems like it will be small for just about everyone. Even for the super rich, they're saving 1.1% on the top marginal rate, AMT still exists, estate tax still exists (although AMT & estate tax were adjusted so it's less of a hit, don't have the numbers or the practical knowledge to figure out how much).

That leaves the big changes of the corporate rate and things that are not at all tax related like poisoning the ACA, opening up Alaska for oil drilling, and who knows what else.

I think it's important to understand that. The deplorables think they got a victory here and it might be dangerous to frame the counterargument as "No, this is just a transfer of wealth to the richest." That's generally true but the mechanisms are much more hidden than they were in the House bill. There aren't going to be a lot of people surprised by a bigger tax bill. It's probably better to say that this bill benefits an extremely small group of people, doesn't do **** for anyone else, and adds $1.5T in debt to pay for it. Keying on the fact that there's no direct benefits here for most people will be easier for people to see than trying to explain how exactly it hurts them, they can somewhat piece together that no direct benefits + more debt = net bad for them somehow, and it rains on their victory parade which is probably the best thing politically since we're past the point of blocking the bill from becoming law.

Yup. They are cheering on tax cuts for the rich paid for by tax increases on themselves

I made my last post before iron's post but that attitude is basically what we need to counter. If we say "hey dumbasses your taxes are increasing" and that turns out to be wrong (it is for the most part) they'll just be like "lol fake news" and believe more strongly that they've won. If we say "hey dumbasses your taxes aren't changing, this bill wasn't meant for you" and they see that turns out to be correct (it will be) that's enough to make them feel like losers.

All the actual tax increases are put off to later years. That's the point to make. The lower bracket tax cuts are temporary, and likely to be undone by the killing of the ACA mandate. The big ones are permanent for corporate and estate.

And to undo it, all 3 branches have to go democrat by significant margins.

My Trumpkin FB friends say "it's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem."

Cut war (defense lol) spending by 75% and there's plenty of revenue.

I haven't found the details of that yet but my understanding is all of the personal income tax laws return to the current law. Since the new law is mostly just a game of trading slightly reduced rates for slightly more taxable income for a net wash it doesn't make much difference which law stands.

I think this is really dumb strategically, but Paul Ryan continues to claim this thing is going to conference, and will not be directly voted on by the House.

Nothing matters. They lie with impunity.

Is there odds it goes to conference? I'm thinking like 40% it does. But I think that would be an insane move by the GOP (assuming the "sane" move is that they want the plan to pass, which is actually insane).

Is this going to apply to the 2017 tax year?

No changes would go into effect Jan 1 I believe so would not apply to this year's tax filings.

heh, just noticed riverman curse strikes again on this thread title

Well, they did screw it up. But then they passed it.

I was half right.

Arguably they did a great job of "tax reform" if you include the scare quotes.

Screwed up for us. For them it's a gold mine.

So I didn't realize that charitable donations will no longer be able to be itemized. This seems like a huge deal that not many are talking about.

I mean we all know these pigs are going after social spending next (herp who could have seen these deficits coming? derp) and this hack seems like it will likely greatly reduce charitable giving as well.

These people are ****ing monsters.

So the Senate bill is like Christmas morning for middle and upper-middle class families with children due to the Child Tax Credit.

A family of 5 making $100,000 nearly has zero tax liability (Senate bill)

$100,000 gross
-$24,000 standard deduction
-$18,000 401k
=$58,000 taxable

=$1905+$4674 = $6579 - 3 x $2000 CTC = Total tax = $579

Senate Tax Brackets
0-19050 10% $1905 (if max out this rate)
19050-77400 12% $7002(+$1905) (if max out this rate)
77400-91145 22.5% $3092(+$7002+$1905) (if max out this rate)

You can play with the numbers. But drastically increasing the phaseout threshold of the CTC from ~$100,000 to ~$500,000 and DOUBLING the CTC from $1000 to $2000 is large tax savings for families in the $100,000-$150,000 income range.

Current Law

Yeah, sure, ignore state and local taxes!

I'm actually ok with this in a long term sort of way because it gave rich people a way to fund their own crazy pet ideas and, again, in the long term it be better if that chunk of money going to social programs had some democratic input by the creation of government programs focused on what charity does. Of course the bill has a lot of progressive tax increases, only to turn around and say, what if we gave that money to billionaires?

Dogwhistles out in force this morning

A slight issue with this bill is its effects are wildly variable depending on whoever's specific circumstances, so you'll find people whose tax burden drops substantially and others whose bill jumps up a lot based even if they're kind of the same from a distance.

Right wing media was blaming poors when the subprime mortgage crisis hit. I know several people who swallowed that whole.