Public opposition to tax bill grows as vote approaches

[Khayembii Communique]

It looks like we will save $2500 to $3000 a year. I haven't done a deep dive, but there's a benefit.

I like the reduction in the corporate tax rate. Reduced expenses means it could result in more jobs in the US rather than overseas. It could also mean expansion to existing facilities and other capital expenditures. All of that means more well-paying jobs, within the corporations themselves as well as construction, equipment sales, etc. Some will choose to pocket the savings, but I think more will look to grow.

First, the reduction in corporate tax rate really won't have a huge effect. Nobody pays the rate. Nobody. Effective rates are in every case much lower than the set rate because of tax benefits and loopholes.

Second, companies don't invest in capex because they have higher net margins or free cash flows. They invest because they see the investment as making a return in the future - i.e. generating future revenue. In today's economy where interest rates are rock bottom, increasing free cash flows will have very, very little impact on whether a business decides to invest. If there's an opportunity to invest in capex right now, companies would merely borrow to fund it, not wait until their cash reserves are able to fund it after years of saving the marginal cash flows they'd earn from their very meager reduction in taxes.

 

[zimmer]

You may also want to remember that the country was in a horrific recession when Reagan took office. The unemployment rate was almost twice what it is today. The average inflation rate in 1981 was over 10%.

We keep hearing how great our economy is doing today. Stock market records. Low unemployment. Record corporate profits. So what is the correlation between the need for Reagan to push tax reform and the need for it today? The answer is "none".

Reagan's tax cuts were popular because they were needed. And to your earlier point, he was re-elected resoundingly because of them.

The reason:

It’s our money. We worked for it. We earned it.

Paying 10 to 15% to the government is acceptable, but beyond that... no thanks. I would rather keep it and use it as I see fit.

 

[zimmer]

Your hatred for this bill has more to do with who is signing it, don't kid yourself.

She is certainly a blind and angry NeverTrumper. At times I think John McCain has joined the forum.

I’m a Conservative... probably more Libertarian, and I know Trump isn;t a Conservative, and might is Liberal on some issues. He’s changed his mind on some too over time.

What matters is what he said during the campaign, a lot of which is consistent with what he said decades ago.

So far, he’s kept his word better than any politician since Reagan in 1980.

It’s great to wake up every morning and realize Hillary isn’t continuing Obama’s destruction of America.

 

[Thoreau72]

What is bad about the bill?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

The shorter list is what is good about the bill, assuming one is not in the 1%.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Because everyone wanting a job should have one.

lolol zimmer the socialist preaching full employment I love it

 

[ludin]

It's heavily slanted towards helping the ultra rich while boning the middle class. The feel-good cuts the middle class might see have an expiration date while the others for corporations and the top tier don't.

Can you explain why it's a good idea to get rid of the tax credit teachers could claim for buying supplies for their classrooms? Those freeloaders need to pay more so we can cut the estate tax, right? What a grand idea!

the amount is limited based on the liberals being the party of no.
if liberals weren't being obstructionists then the bill could have permanent tax cuts for everyone.
however before the bill was even formalized they were already going to filibuster it.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

the amount is limited based on the liberals being the party of no.
if liberals weren't being obstructionists then the bill could have permanent tax cuts for everyone.
however before the bill was even formalized they were already going to filibuster it.

lolwut? They're not passing this bill with any democratic votes. The Republicans have complete authority over what's in the bill. Sorry, this argument just doesn't work when the Republicans control congress and the white house.

 

[Moon]

Why are Republicans so obsessed with creating jobs when the unemployment rate is at 4.1%?

Because steady, well paying, full time jobs are better than low paying part time jobs.

 

[RAMOSS]

the amount is limited based on the liberals being the party of no.
if liberals weren't being obstructionists then the bill could have permanent tax cuts for everyone.
however before the bill was even formalized they were already going to filibuster it.

This is a very naive point of view. The one assumption you are making is the supply side economics works. The previous times, the attempt\ts to do supply side economics greatly increased the deficit... which required an increase in taxes to try to reduce it. the previous times it was attempted, it caused a bubble/burst

 

[Moon]

First, the reduction in corporate tax rate really won't have a huge effect. Nobody pays the rate. Nobody. Effective rates are in every case much lower than the set rate because of tax benefits and loopholes.

Second, companies don't invest in capex because they have higher net margins or free cash flows. They invest because they see the investment as making a return in the future - i.e. generating future revenue. In today's economy where interest rates are rock bottom, increasing free cash flows will have very, very little impact on whether a business decides to invest. If there's an opportunity to invest in capex right now, companies would merely borrow to fund it, not wait until their cash reserves are able to fund it after years of saving the marginal cash flows they'd earn from their very meager reduction in taxes.

According to an 8 year study done by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, of the 258 corporations they reviewed, 68% paid a tax rate greater than 17.5%, and if those, 26% paid a tax rate of greater than 30%. 100 of the 258 companies paid paid zero or less at least once during those 8 years. So maybe no one pays the full rate, but the majority pay a large portion of it.

Yes, I agree with your part about why corporations invest.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

the amount is limited based on the liberals being the party of no.
if liberals weren't being obstructionists then the bill could have permanent tax cuts for everyone.
however before the bill was even formalized they were already going to filibuster it.

Who wrote the bill? Which democrats are voting for it? Who put in the expiration date for the middle class and who decided teachers shouldn't get to write off their classroom expenses? It's 100% the GOP. You guys own this one completely.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

According to an 8 year study done by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, of the 258 corporations they reviewed, 68% paid a tax rate greater than 17.5%, and if those, 26% paid a tax rate of greater than 30%. 100 of the 258 companies paid paid zero or less at least once during those 8 years. So maybe no one pays the full rate, but the majority pay a large portion of it.

Yes, I agree with your part about why corporations invest.

So 45-46 companies out of 258 paid more than 30% in taxes. Do we know if these were strictly domestic companies? Do we know what these taxes were paid on? Do you know how the tax bill would affect these corporations? It just seems like a stretch to claim any sort of benefit for society in general by reducing the tax rate when in reality this basically just means higher free cash flows and higher valuations, which benefits investors, not anyone else.

And if you agree with what I said about investing, then how could you argue that this would lead to more jobs and investment? I mean my entire argument was in opposition to your claim.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

It hasn't been read by people who have been told to hate it, for one.

Nor has it been read by the people in congress who are being told to vote for it.

Well, Corker read his personal kickback section, and that's nice.

 

[jonny5]

Party Affiliation | Gallup Historical Trends

According to Gallup, as of Nov 8th, the split was Dem 30% Rep 25% and Ind 42%

While it would seem the sampling is off by 2% in favor of Ind/Dem, remember the GOP hasn't been making many friends among voters for the last 6 weeks. It's very possible those are simply the current percentages for party affiliation among US voters.

There is absolutley no way that Independant is 42% of the voting population.

Overall, 48% of all registered voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic compared with 44% who identify as Republican or lean toward the GOP.

While partisan preferences among all voters are narrowly split, there are wide gaps in leanings among demographic groups. There are fundamental differences in how men and women, young and old, whites, blacks and Hispanics describe their partisan leanings. In many cases, persistent differences have grown wider in recent years.

Party affiliation among U.S. voters: 1992-2016 | Pew Research Center

 

[jonny5]

Wrong. According to the Tax Foundation, this bill:



https://taxfoundation.org/final-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-details-analysis/

Uh, thats what I just said.

Only the business changes are permanent.

 

[ludin]

Exactly. If this bill is gonna help out the middle class so much, why does it expire for them?

This is simple. In order to get around the filibuster the republicans had to jump through some hoops to get there. one of those hoops is setting a max on
how much money they are going to spend. before the bill was even formalized liberals in congress had their heart already set on filibuster any attempt at tax reform.
why? because it would actually mean people pay less taxes and that is against most liberal philosophy.

keeping us competitive in the corporate market is important. the average top marginal rate in the world among developed countries is about 25%. in the US the top marginal rate is 35%.
by keeping corporate taxes lower and in line with everyone else we become more competitive. it opens more opportunities for job growth and job creation.

it isn't so much corporations but for small and medium size businesses that we want to grow into corporations.

the next reason is that in 2026 the congress that doesn't renew it will be labeled as hiking taxes on the working people.
so it is sort of a bargain chip to the next congress.

renew it or face voter backlash.

 

[TheGoverness]

Uh, thats what I just said.

Which is one of the, if not the biggest problem with this tax bill.

 

[ludin]

Who wrote the bill? Which democrats are voting for it? Who put in the expiration date for the middle class and who decided teachers shouldn't get to write off their classroom expenses? It's 100% the GOP. You guys own this one completely.

sorry but the party of no is the party of no. if liberals stop being obstructionist then they could have had a permanent tax cut.
the teacher thing is only half true.

teachers are capped at a 250 dollar deduction for classroom expenses period.
anything over that is out of their own pocket.

A closer look at the classroom-expenses deduction for teachers: How big is it? | PolitiFact

updated news

Final Tax Bill Keeps Teacher Deduction at $250, Cuts State and Local Deductions - Politics K-12 - Education Week

for the compromised bill the deduction stays at 250 dollars.

so your information is heavily outdated and frankly wrong.
either that or you knew about it and are just lying.

 

[ludin]

lolwut? They're not passing this bill with any democratic votes. The Republicans have complete authority over what's in the bill. Sorry, this argument just doesn't work when the Republicans control congress and the white house.

hence why it is a limited bill instead of a full tax cut.
the party of no won't let it be a full tax bill.

 

[jonny5]

Which is one of the, if not the biggest problem with this tax bill.

Sure, but the benefits outweigh it. That problem of expiring the individual tax cuts can be fixed tomorrow and meanwhile youll enjoy lower taxes. If they go back up in 10 years youre no worse off.

 

[Moon]

So 45-46 companies out of 258 paid more than 30% in taxes. Do we know if these were strictly domestic companies? Do we know what these taxes were paid on? Do you know how the tax bill would affect these corporations? It just seems like a stretch to claim any sort of benefit for society in general by reducing the tax rate when in reality this basically just means higher free cash flows and higher valuations, which benefits investors, not anyone else.

And if you agree with what I said about investing, then how could you argue that this would lead to more jobs and investment? I mean my entire argument was in opposition to your claim.

I was looking for something that told me what the breakdown was on how many companies paid the corporate rate. You were pretty clear that nobody pays the corporate rate, and I interested in seeing the data.

Companies are going to invest where there are growth opportunities. Some may have opportunities they would like to take advantage of but for whatever don't want to or can't incur more debt. Freeing up more capital through lower taxes is a way for them to invest more in growth. Some may modernize. Some may put the money to shoring up the health of their company. Some may use it to increases wages or other benefits. My point is that each company is going to make decisions based on what works best for them and,their particular situation. Lower taxes increases their options.

 

[shagg]

There is absolutley no way that Independant is 42% of the voting population.



Party affiliation among U.S. voters: 1992-2016 | Pew Research Center

Overall, 48% of all registered voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic compared with 44% who identify as Republican or lean toward the GOP.

And there is your explanation. A right leaning independent is not a republican, for the purpose of the poll in the OP. Your info is also close to 2 years old, and it's been a very eventful 2 years.

What, exactly, do you think an independent is? Someone who is absolutely neutral with no lean?

I realize it's a lot easier to just exclaim "Fake news! Fake Poll!" rather than deal with reality though.

 

[ludin]

This is a very naive point of view. The one assumption you are making is the supply side economics works. The previous times, the attempt\ts to do supply side economics greatly increased the deficit... which required an increase in taxes to try to reduce it. the previous times it was attempted, it caused a bubble/burst

the bubbles were not due to tax cuts. Supply side economics has worked well for the past well 20 some years.
there is a temporary increase in deficit until it kicks in fully and the economy ramps up to saturation.

i would have implemented a bit of a different plan.

i would have implemented a 25% rate with an additional 5% deduction for increased non-exeuctive/shareholder pay.

so they could have lowered their tax bill down to the 20% that Trump wanted while increasing normal employee pay.

 

[Herkamer63]

There is absolutley no way that Independant is 42% of the voting population.



Party affiliation among U.S. voters: 1992-2016 | Pew Research Center

These pollsters have, in the past (and still do), lied about what percentage of certain groups they polled. Typically, they weigh their polls heavily with Democrats, and I agree that 42% for Independents doesn't even sound right. My thoughts, I will bet the real numbers are 51% (or higher) Democrat, 25% (the only number that might be accurate) Republican, and, roughly, 21% (or lower) Independents. A lot of polls today don't reflect public opinion, but rather they try and shape it (in favor of the Left). So take this poll with a truck load of salt because I will bet a large percentage of those Independents are actually Democrats (at least Leftists).

 

[shagg]

the amount is limited based on the liberals being the party of no.
if liberals weren't being obstructionists then the bill could have permanent tax cuts for everyone.
however before the bill was even formalized they were already going to filibuster it.

So the expiration date on the middle class tax cuts is ... a penalty, on the middle class .... because Dem politicians didn't participate in the process.

Man, that's going to be popular. The GOP are really playing the long game here, eh?