Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, October 27, 2017

The proposal would reduce federal revenues by $2.4 trillion over the first ten years and $3.2 in the second decade. This means that absent a matched deduction in spending, US deficit and debt will increase by a similar amount. This is a problem as a Senate GOP budget resolution unveiled on Friday only allows for adding $1.5 trillion to the debt, implying a revenue shortfall of just under $1 trillion.
The business income tax provisions -- including those affecting corporations and pass-through businesses -- would reduce revenues by $2.6 trillion over the first ten years. Elimination of estate and gift taxes would lose another $240 billion. The individual income tax provisions (excluding those related to business income) would increase revenues by about $470 billion over the same period.




Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

While many Americans will benefit, the biggest gains will go to the 1%, whose after-tax income would increase by over 8%.

In 2018, the average tax bill for all income groups would decline: taxpayers in the bottom 95 percent of the income distribution would see average after-tax incomes increase between 0.5 and 1.2%. However, and where the Democrats will have a field day, taxpayers in the top 1 percent (incomes above $730,000), would receive about 50 percent of the total tax benefit; their after-tax income would increase an average of 8.5 percent. Between 2018 and 2027, the average tax cut as a share of after-tax income would fall for all income groups other than the top 1 percent. In 2027, taxpayers between the 80th and 95th percentiles of income (between about $150,000 and $300,000) would experience a slight tax increase on average

The problem is that at the same time, taxes for substantial portion of taxpayers will go up:

In 2018, about 12% of taxpayers would face a tax increase of roughly $1,800 on average. Where it gets worse is that many of those who form the backbone of the upper-middle class, or more than a third of taxpayers making between about $150,000 and $300,000, will pay more, mainly because most itemized deductions would be repealed. Fast forward to 2027, when the overall average tax cut would be smaller than in 2018, increasing after-tax incomes 1.7 percent. Taxpayer groups in the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution -- those making less than about $150,000 -- would receive average tax cuts of 0.5 percent or less of after-tax income. However, taxpayers making between about $150,000 and $300,000 would on average pay about $800 more in taxes than under current law. And the one item which Democrats will love: about 80% of the total benefit would accrue to taxpayers in the top 1 percent, whose after-tax income would increase 8.7 percent.

It gets worse: by 2027, taxes would rise for roughly one-quarter of taxpayers, including nearly 30 percent of those with incomes between about $50,000 and $150,000 and 60 percent of those making between about $150,000 and $300,000.

According to the Tax Policy Center, the number of taxpayers with a tax increase rises over time. This is because the plan would replace personal exemptions, which are indexed for inflation, with additional credits for children and non-child dependents that are not indexed for inflation. In addition, indexing tax brackets and other parameters to the slower-growing chained Consumer Price Index means that over time more income is subject to tax at higher rates.


Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Everyone knew this would happen.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2017-10-27 08:49 AM | Reply

Not everyone. There are still some Trumpsuckers that think they are getting a bigly tax cut. Presumably these people are the ones that need to be told to blink once in a while.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2017-10-27 09:09 AM | Reply

A march on Washington should be organized for disappointed Trump voters to voice their objections....oh wait....they are still in denial. When they see the reduction in their take home pay I suspect they will finally realize Republicans are not their friends. Stupidity on the level they have displayed for 30 years deserves to be punished. I'll accept higher taxes gladly knowing that so to will all of the idiots who voted Republican for the last 30 years. Y'all own this. Oh and reductions in Medicare or SS, you own that too dumb asses.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-27 09:52 AM | Reply

"Y'all own this"

I've never understood what this means. I've seen those on the right and left say this....but I've always wondered if they ever believe it matters.

I see partisans all the time never take "ownership" of their vote. Every thing Obama did that was cast in a negative light was spun by Obamabots as "republicans fault", "he's being pragmatic", etc...IOW, no Obamabot ever "owned" anything.

I'm not talking about everyone who voted for Obama.....just the "bots". I voted for Obama, but unlike the "bots" I didn't feel that I "owned" what Obama did...in fact I supported or admonished each and every thing Obama did. If I hadn't told you, nobody would even know if I had voted for him or not.

I guess I'll never get over this obsession to shackle one's self to a politician because you voted for him. It's not like you "own" it anyway so stop pretending you do.....and even better...stop expecting someone else to own their vote.

Because they won't.

Partisans aren't about "ownership" so much as they are about "blame"

#4 | Posted by eberly at 2017-10-27 10:07 AM | Reply

I 'own' my first Clinton vote. I 'own' my first Obama vote. I made two huge mistakes.

Didn't make the same mistake in 2016.

#5 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-10-27 10:12 AM | Reply

"I see partisans all the time never take "ownership" of their vote."

Oh please. How about Bush voters who voted for him a second time even after he invaded Iraq completely unnecessarily and despite the fact there was no evidence of WMDs as was testified by inspectors? The voters who voted the second time for him don't bear any responsiblity for the disasters that befell this nation and other nations? You're full of crap.
Today, don't try to tell me that Trump voters don't bear responsiblity for the actions of him and his fellow Republicans who are getting ready to bankrupt the nation.
What planet are you from anyway?

"I 'own' my first Clinton vote. I 'own' my first Obama vote. I made two huge mistakes."

Yeah, cuz he brought you prosperity and a dramatic reduction in troops in the ME. Oh dear, I hope he can live with the blame for that after Trump wrecks both. Did a medical procedure disconnect your brain or are you living in a different dimension? Cuz, your post is nonsense.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-27 10:25 AM | Reply

"Partisans aren't about "ownership" so much as they are about "blame""

You are doubly full of crap. I've owned my vote for LBJ and his Vietnam War, which was and still is the biggest disaster in modern American history. I've never run away from my vote. He did a lot of good but his war destroyed his legacy, he acknowledged it and lived out the rest of his live in seclusion.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-27 10:27 AM | Reply

Rep. Eric Swalwell‏ @RepSwalwell

43.6% of #CA15 taxpayers use state/local deduction, w/ avg ded of $18,672. #GOPbudget diminishes or eliminates it. That's not #FairerTaxes.
9:37 AM - 26 Oct 2017

#8 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-27 10:50 AM | Reply

"The voters who voted the second time for him don't bear any responsiblity for the disasters that befell this nation and other nations?"

You're making my point for me. You're assigning blame to them but they'll never accept it. I'm not assigning blame nor exonerating them. It's not about the actual blame....it's about the acceptance of it.

"I've owned my vote for LBJ and his Vietnam War"

So, the blood of 50K+ dead American soldiers and over 1 million civilian Asians is on your hands?

While you look down your judgmental nose at Bush voters and the blood on their hands, you're admitting the 20+ times MORE blood on your hands?

You own Vietnam in the same way Aflac owns Iraq?

#9 | Posted by eberly at 2017-10-27 01:10 PM | Reply

I'll wait, Danni.

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2017-10-27 01:54 PM | Reply



#10 - Isn't Danni owning up to her vote in #9? She was the one that admitted it was a mistake. What exactly are you asking from her?

#11 | Posted by schmanch at 2017-10-27 03:24 PM | Reply


I'm asking for confirmation of that. I'm asking her to acknowledge she has more blood on her hands for Vietnam than anybody else would for Iraq.

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2017-10-27 04:03 PM | Reply

Rs can't tax rich people because they make bribes, excuse me, I meant campaign contributions. Rs can't tax poor people because they don't have much money. Who does that leave?

#13 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2017-10-28 01:01 PM | Reply

Great. The "nonpartisan" is comparing Obama to Trump. Jesus.

#14 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-10-28 03:47 PM | Reply

"You own Vietnam in the same way Aflac owns Iraq?"

I voted for LBJ but then I also protested his war in Vietnam. He didn't run on a platform of dramatically increasing the number of "advisors" we had in Vietnam. Now, pretend that is the same thing as actively supporting the IDIOTIC Iraq invasion but that would just be stupid.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-29 12:03 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort