It's relevant as far as it's how the bill is written. It could have been written otherwise, businesses won't have to worry assumptions in 2027. Republicans have let other tax cuts expire and were currently waiting to CHIP to be renewed in spite of it supposedly being so amazing no one would let it expire.

You'd assume that Rs would always happily agree to extending a tax cut to the working class but you'd be wrong:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...n_2288913.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthony.../#3a8085d9392f

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ocial-security

https://taxfoundation.org/why-your-2...-percent-less/

The R philosophy revolves around the Randian idea of the talented "heros" being entitled to virtually unlimited wealth while the rest of us "looters and moochers" guilt/force the heros into giving us scraps.

That is why despite all the lies about slashing middle class taxes and increasing taxes for many classes of wealthy people, this tax bill focuses on the later in both size and permanency. People are right to be suspicious. Rs are going to get their pound of flesh from the moochers and looters to give to the heros one way or another if they have their way. For example, they may agree to extend these tax cuts for the lower classes in 2026 or whatever but then they will use them as leverage for cuts in Medicare/Social Security/Medicaid/etc, if they haven't slashed them already by then.

lol, you’re not.

Collins is not taking nearly enough heat.

She accepted a promise that will never actually happen AGAIN.

So she's either stupid or a liar, I don't care which, unfit for office either way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...340_story.html

I just saw this article. So it sounds like the real estate tax break that was reported as a likely reason for Corker flipping is actually a huge break on all pass through companies? That's not just a tax break on real estate LLC's, that's a tax break on pretty much all high earners. I can't think of anyone that makes more than a few hundred k that couldn't structure their income through an LLC. It's a ridiculously broad loophole that previous versions of the bill at least made an attempt to patch up but it looks like that's all out now. Am I reading that wrong? Why is that not the story? As much as it might help to pressure Corker specifically (it won't) it's just as important to point out how this bill is opening up a path for nearly all high earners to dodge taxes.

Also extending the tax cuts blows a whole in the deficit

It might be better to lower tuition, but give no tax waiver ... it might be that the tuition waiver exemption encourages higher tuitions, because those that would have to pay them don't have to pay them. Either way the money comes out of public funds, but in one scheme less directly than in the other.

Certainly in most of Europe the scheme is simply that tuition is kept low (or nonexistent, e.g. in Germany).

According to a buddy in Maine, Collins shut off her phones before the last vote on the tax bill... this time she's staying in DC. Her mind is made up, and she's trying to stay out of the news to maintain her reputation as a moderate.

Here's hoping her constituents remember in 2020.

She won by 37 points in 2014 (and by 23 points in 08). If she loses, which seems HIGHLY unlikely, it won't be because of this tax vote.

Also, some dumbass libs will vote for her in the spirit of bipartisanship and civility, which undoubtedly Pres nominee Corey Booker will be preaching.

The Dems didn't run a competitive candidate in '14. I think on her reputation she'd usually win 60/40, but in a presidential year with Trump on the top of the GOP ticket versus a good opponent it could be close.

My buddy admitted he voted for her, but he won't again. He's furious.

It helps to make the social safety net more stable and secure. Slowing the growth in spending is a more viable option actually.

TRUMP into real estate too and yes looks like it is all pass throughs after reading the article. Hmmm... interesting.

Although the army is one function that the federal government should be providing, I think the US probably does it far far too much, and an aim to lower military spending to around 25% of the current level would be a decent target.

Why would you single out the army when there are thousands of programs/expenditures that the federal government really has no business being involved in?

Do you think the Federal Government should not provide/support/run an army at all?

I have some friends that don't want to draw a line between taxing and spending. i.e. stopping a handout = taxing more. Are you in that group as well?

An example, if my coworker has 4 kids and a large mortgage, and I am single and own my house outright, my tax burden is X and his is Y where X>>>Y. Do you think it is okay that with similar incomes I pay for more than he does? His deductions means my taxes have to be higher, right?

Why look at it as removing the MID? It simply lets others get a similar deduction without forcing them to owe money on their homes.

What portion of Government spending is "infrastructure and ... services necessary to keep society running" in your estimation?

It's so ****ing harmful that Dems haven't once pushed back on this **** for the last 20 years.

"We need to make the safety net more stable by making it worse now because otherwise we might need to make it worse in the future" gtfo

No, but your previous comment came across as you being opposed to any/all taxation since you know how to spend it better than Chuck Schumer.

Can't embed because lol olds, but the response to John Cornyns horrible tweet is hilarious.

It's funny because the tax bill is so weighted to the rich that they can't use any average person's income who gets a tax cut because then it'd be like,"we're giving 10 dollars back! And next year we're cutting your Medicare"

You need to get out more, expand the people you discuss these things with maybe? I do not agree with any of that.

Lol you. She knows exactly what’s going on and what’s going to happen.

My sister is convinced that this tax plan is amazing for her and that Dems don’t care about people like her.

Background: Single mom. Income: $25k a year.

She’s thrilled the individual mandate is gone. Thinks Trump is for the people. I have no idea how to help her see otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Time for a title change - they aren't screwing this up.

Basically what Dems need to plan to reverse this if they regain congress in 2020. would be to raise the federal minimum wage. Increase taxes on corporations having companies overseas. would be the prudent way to counteract this bill. both would be extremely popular with the public. If you want to really piss of the GOP universal healthcare should be on the table as well.