Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, November 30, 2017

The tax plan has been marketed by President Trump and Republican leaders as a straightforward if enormous rebate for the masses, a $1.5 trillion package of cuts to spur hiring and economic growth. But as the bill has been rushed through Congress with scant debate, its far broader ramifications have come into focus, revealing a catchall legislative creation that could reshape major areas of American life, from education to health care.

Some of this re-engineering is straight out of the traditional Republican playbook. Corporate taxes, along with those on wealthy Americans, would be slashed on the presumption that when people in penthouses get relief, the benefits flow down to basement tenements.

Some measures are barely connected to the realm of taxation, such as the lifting of a 1954 ban on political activism by churches and the conferring of a new legal right for fetuses in the House bill -- both on the wish list of the evangelical right.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

With a potentially far-reaching dimension, elements in both the House and Senate bills could constrain the ability of states and local governments to levy their own taxes, pressuring them to limit spending on health care, education, public transportation and social services. In their longstanding battle to shrink government, Republicans have found in the tax bill a vehicle to broaden the fight beyond Washington.

The result is a behemoth piece of legislation that could widen American economic inequality while diminishing the power of local communities to marshal relief for vulnerable people -- especially in high-tax states like California and New York, which, not coincidentally, tend to vote Democratic.

Comments

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

It's truly scary how bad this bill is and how detrimental to average folks this bill will be:

Economists and tax experts are overwhelmingly skeptical that the bills in the House and Senate can generate meaningful job growth and economic expansion. Many view the legislation not as a product of genuine deliberation, but as a transfer of wealth to corporations and affluent individuals -- both generous purveyors of campaign contributions. By 2027, people making $40,000 to $50,000 would pay a combined $5.3 billion more in taxes, while the group earning $1 million or more would get a $5.8 billion cut, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office.

"When you put all these pieces together, what you're left with is we are squandering a giant sum of money," said Edward D. Kleinbard, a former chief of staff at the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation who teaches law at the University of Southern California. "It's not aimed at growth. It is not aimed at the middle class. It is at every turn carefully engineered to deliver a kiss to the donor class."

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-30 04:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

But Trump cares about the working class...

Seriously, its hard to type that without laughing.

#2 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-30 04:20 PM | Reply

At some point Democrats will return to power. We need to promise the rich that when we do we will take back this tax cut and raise taxes on them to pre-Reagan levels. In the long run it will be more expensive for them to pass this tax cut. We will make sure of it.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-30 04:26 PM | Reply

"By 2027, people making $40,000 to $50,000 would pay a combined $5.3 billion more in taxes, while the group earning $1 million or more would get a $5.8 billion cut"

Well if that doesn't incentivize you lazy liberals to become millionaires, it's your own dumb fault!

Trump is trying to make us all millionaires but you lazy liberals are determined to drag us down. Sad!

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-30 04:31 PM | Reply

"It's not aimed at growth. It is not aimed at the middle class. It is at every turn carefully engineered to deliver a kiss to the donor class."

A kiss to the donor class and butt you-know-what without lube to the rest of us.

#5 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-30 04:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The people who republicans won't admit they voted for now are about to do what the last bunch of people who republicans won't admit they voted for did right before they crashed the economy.

Wonderful!

#6 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-30 04:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm a pretty big fan of ending the deduction of state taxes from Federal taxes. Why should residents of those states get out of paying their fair share of their fair share?

"We need to promise the rich that when we do we will take back this tax cut and raise taxes on them to pre-Reagan levels. In the long run it will be more expensive for them to pass this tax cut. We will make sure of it."

What you really need is an NKVD-like squad of right-minded people to keep the wealthy in check. I can think of no one more qualified to lead that formation than you.

#7 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-30 05:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What you really need is an NKVD-like squad of right-minded people to keep the wealthy in check."

What we're getting is a tax policy that does the opposite.

I assume you're in favor of the Trump tax plan then? Conforms well enough to your libertarian ideals?

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-30 06:09 PM | Reply

I'm a pretty big fan of ending the deduction of state taxes from Federal taxes. Why should residents of those states get out of paying their fair share of their fair share?

I'm quite certain you knew this was BS when you posted it.

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-30 06:25 PM | Reply

I assume you're in favor of the Trump tax plan then? Conforms well enough to your libertarian ideals?

Of course MadBummer is in favor. He's the DR champion for income inequality.

The rich writing the laws to make themselves richer doesn't bother him.

Because the poor can always move to Honduras.

#10 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-30 06:29 PM | Reply

#2 i can't...type it anymore. i had to stop. SAD!

#11 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-11-30 10:26 PM | Reply

#7 i'd volunteer.

#12 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-11-30 10:29 PM | Reply

"I assume you're in favor of the Trump tax plan then? Conforms well enough to your libertarian ideals?"

I am a fan of removing the dedication of state taxes...although I think limiting state tax deductions to amounts of a few thousand would be more reasonable.

Other than that, no. I'm not terribly impressed. The Repubs don't seem to be interested in pursuing sound yet growth-oriented tax policies any more than the Dems...although I've been busy and haven't had much time to look at the comments from the University of Chicago.

#13 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-01 05:01 PM | Reply

"Of course MadBummer is in favor. He's the DR champion for income inequality."

You're right about that. Income inequality is just another cause for this country's chattering classes. In all honesty, if you're biggest concern is income inequality, it's because you're already rich. You just don't think that anyone else should be richer. Most countries spend their time worry about more life-altering threats. Like poverty.

But I think there should be a standard deduction of a couple thousand dollars or so...to limit the burden to taxpayers on the lower end of the scale.

#14 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-01 05:09 PM | Reply

I am a fan of removing the dedication of state taxes...although I think limiting state tax deductions to amounts of a few thousand would be more reasonable.

A lot of people give to charities in order to be able to deduct from their taxes.

Remove the incentive and you'll lose donations.

Increasing the tax burden on the middle class also eliminates spending cash which will adversely affect our economy.

All this tax cut does is provide the wealthy with more money they will place in off shore bank accounts.

It's your income inequality utopia.

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-12-01 05:11 PM | Reply

We are at about 5% unemployment. WHY do we need a tax cut to spur employment?

#16 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-12-01 05:12 PM | Reply

"if you're biggest concern is income inequality, it's because you're already rich."

Likewise, if income inequality is of no concern, it's because you're already rich.

It's funny that you think you made a point with that comment though.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-01 05:15 PM | Reply

if you're biggest concern is income inequality, it's because you're already rich.

Really? This is the best you got?

Can you explain your bit of illogic?

The rich are concerned about how little the poor are making? Cause they're altruistic??

It's not the poor who are wonder why they're working 80 hours a week and still not making ends meet?

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-12-01 05:17 PM | Reply

We are at about 5% unemployment. WHY do we need a tax cut to spur employment?

The tax cuts aren't about helping the economy.

It's simply Trump giving himself a tax cut.

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-12-01 05:19 PM | Reply

"A lot of people give to charities in order to be able to deduct from their taxes."

And that has what to do with deducting state taxes from federal?

"Increasing the tax burden on the middle class also eliminates spending cash which will adversely affect our economy."

Really? But a dollar made by the poor or the wealthy will not adversely affect society?

"We are at about 5% unemployment. WHY do we need a tax cut to spur employment?"

I don't think that tax cuts are going to enable that outcome. They do work-have worked...when rates were/are much higher. But conservatives who claim that continually lowering taxes will improve the economy are as clueless as those progressives who clamor for increased tax rates.

There is no amount of tax lower than will somehow make a low value worker more valuable. I'm not an employer, but I don't see how spending more than market rate on a worker, or anything else for that matter, would ever make sense.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-01 06:14 PM | Reply

"Can you explain your bit of illogic?"

I already did.

if you're poor. Like actual poverty, you're going to care about meeting your basic needs. And if you can meet your basic needs, even if it's making someone else very rich, that's better than not meeting those needs and someone else not getting rich. The only reason you don't share that point of view is because you're privileged enough to live in a society where your basic needs are met, leaving you free to concern yourself with the fact that someone else is better off than you are.

Revolutions are started by the poor...unless they're starving to death. They're started by populations who sense of entitlement is greater than what they are actually receiving from society. This phenomenon is measured in terms of a J-curve.

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-01 06:18 PM | Reply

"It's not the poor who are wonder why they're working 80 hours a week and still not making ends meet?"

Statistically, lower income labor works 20% less hours than high income workers...despite myths to the contrary.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-01 06:19 PM | Reply

Statistically, lower income labor works 20% less hours than high income workers...despite myths to the contrary.

Realistically lower income labor works two to three jobs a week to make ends meet.

Despite all the business lunches higher income workers take.

#23 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-12-02 01:06 AM | Reply

you're privileged enough to live in a society where your basic needs are met, leaving you free to concern yourself with the fact that someone else is better off than you are.

Oh I see. The poor are too busy to realize the rich are treating them like cattle.

In the same way ants don't realize humans are stepping on them.

Only altruistic rich people realize the poor are getting shafted.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You have an extremely warped perspective of reality.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-12-02 01:10 AM | Reply

But a dollar made by the poor or the wealthy will not adversely affect society?

The wealthy already have enough dollars to spend. They've already admitted they don't need more money and don't plan on passing any increased financial gains to their employees.

The rich are already spending as much as they ever will.

Cutting money from the middle class will result in less money going back into the economy.

Which will send us back into a recession or perhaps a depression.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-12-02 01:17 AM | Reply

Which will send us back into a recession or perhaps a depression.

Obama's fault!

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-02 01:31 AM | Reply

..The only reason you don't share that point of view is because you're privileged enough to live in a society where your basic needs are met, leaving you free to concern yourself with the fact that someone else is better off than you are. .. This phenomenon is measured in terms of a J-curve.
#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-01 06:18 PM

J meaning "justice"?

How close are we to a functional revolt? I must want to get this done sooner so I can get back to worrying about how to acquire another summer home.

Your premise is amazingly relevant, that "upper class" will not only enforce but encourage the rest of society into the dumpster before re-balancing.

Should something like prosperity ministry be taught in school to respect those with wealth, or where does that begin to prevent bigotry against the wealthy?

#27 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2017-12-02 03:17 PM | Reply

"I'm a pretty big fan of ending the deduction of state taxes from Federal taxes. Why should residents of those states get out of paying their fair share of their fair share?"

Because those states, in general, already give more than their fair share. NJ, NY, and CA get less than a dollar back per dollar they send to DC, while others--generally red states--get over $2 back.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-02 03:21 PM | Reply

"Because those states, in general, already give more than their fair share."

So they're kinda like the 1%ers of states?

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-02 09:43 PM | Reply

California is something like the 6th largest economy on the planet. There is no reason they can't pay their "fair share"...

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-02 09:49 PM | Reply

"There is no reason they can't pay their "fair share"..."

You sound like a socialist, comrade.

But the point isn't that CA is paying its fair share and then some, it's so are NY, and NJ, and another handful of blue states, while red states (in general) get more than a dollar, i.e., DON'T pay their fair share. The state and local tax deductions favoring the blue states don't come close to countering getting back only 80 state cents on the federal dollar, while the Lousianas of the world get more than twice what they send.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-02 10:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-What you really need is an NKVD-like squad of right-minded people to keep the wealthy in check.

lmao!

MythBomber and the Return of the Red Scare!

Do you realize how much more that even a middle-income guy like him would keep if he weren't paying for the tax breaks in this Bill for corps and the 1 percent?

He obviously doesn't. But he continues to be a certain vote and brainwashed mouthpiece for the entities that write their own tax laws... and his.

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-02 10:13 PM | Reply

"But the point isn't that CA is paying its fair share and then some, it's so are NY, and NJ, and another handful of blue states..."

So they are like the 1%...and if you're being honest, you'll admit that there's no shortage of lecturing on how those who could pay more should pay more.

"Do you realize how much more that even a middle-income guy like him would keep if he weren't paying for the tax breaks in this Bill for corps and the 1 percent?"

Honestly, what reason is there not to charge 100% of the tax burden to high income states like CA, NY, and NJ...leaving the rest to contribute to the economy?

#33 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-02 10:38 PM | Reply

Finally...we are all in agreement. CA, NY, and NJ (at the least) should be obligated to pay their fair share.

#34 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-02 10:39 PM | Reply

Honestly... that's the best you've got, a facetious question?

C'mon, man. That's like a white flag. An avoidance technique. Next you'll be trying humor.

Don't makes us sit through that.

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-02 10:42 PM | Reply

"Honestly... that's the best you've got, a facetious question?"

Can you provide an answer for said question?

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-02 10:53 PM | Reply

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........

How 'bout you respond to 32? I mean, otherwise it looks so much like an admission.

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-02 10:55 PM | Reply

"Finally...we are all in agreement. CA, NY, and NJ (at the least) should be obligated to pay their fair share."

Are you purposely misunderstanding? CA, NY, and NJ are EXPECTED to pay for the red states. Red states, in general, are the takers.

"CA, NY, and NJ (at the least) should be obligated to pay their fair share."

Why do you expect less of the red states? Why shouldn't they be obligated to pay their fair share as well?

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-02 10:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- Are you purposely misunderstanding?

That's one of his favorite retorts. More avoidance of the issue.

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-02 10:56 PM | Reply

Madbomber being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest? Get outta here!

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-02 11:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Can you provide an answer for said question?

🖕🏻 You disingenuous hack.

That's your answer.

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-02 11:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort