Similarly, reducing the State and Local Tax deduction to a limit of $10k mostly affects people with a lot of income and expenses houses. It has a bigger impact on blue states, which wasn't offset fairly (intentionally), though.
-
-
3. I agree with
@mattyglesias that from a policy perspective, the tax cut is better for not trying to be revenue neutral (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/4/16734856/taxes-debt-pay-fors …) Unfortunately, they are going to forget their willingness to have debt-financed policy in T-0 seconds, so it doesn't help much.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Negatives: 1. While the new tax code manages to be kind of similarly progressive at the upper-income-but-not-absurdly-rich level, it massively cuts taxes on the absurdly wealthy. There is no good policy reason to do this, imo, and it's also a very unpopular policy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
2. As I said above, the cut in the corporate tax overshoots the equivalent ordinary income rate, which (in some cases, it's more complicated now than before), could cause people to form C corps to pay lower rates.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The complexity in this area is already a source of frustration for me as a business owner, and the decision about whether to be a "pass thru" business or not has actually gotten more complicated and harder after this bill. I want to be a C corp for accounting reasons, fyi.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
3. I think that from a policy perspective, repealing the individual mandate is a mistake. Even if you believe the mandate is a bad idea, basically everyone believes that the resulting healthcare regime is incoherent.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
They probably believe they can use that incoherence to springboard more changes, but that's a really really risky bet that leaves a broken individual insurance system in place until "Congress can get something done" (lol).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
4. Saved this for last (I have to go back to work), it's just a very different bill, from a policy perspective, than what they sold and campaigned on. This in itself is not sufficient to oppose the bill, but it does mean we haven't heard an election campaign ...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
for the policies in this bill. As far as anyone can tell, the policies have no good explanation other than "we'll take what we can get", but there are a number of other casualties that might make the bill worse than nothing at all.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think they owed it to us to sell the bill on its merits, not on the merits of an alternative bill that is 180° different (fewer brackets, radically fewer deductions, broadening the base) that they didn't propose at all.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
In a big sense, it's very hard to argue against the bill because most of the arguments for it are not actually arguments for the actual things the bill is doing. And saying that out loud doesn't make for a very polite debate. But it has to be said.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.