Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
House Just Passes Tax Overhaul With All Republican Votes: Impact On You
I think you are correct. While BA is not focused in the area I have owned Boeing since 1978 and one of my best and favorite holdings. Do you have any suggestion for a private co?
Trying to avoid being too political but it seems to me the Republicans are so eager for the corporate tax reduction and the end of estate tax and alt minimum tax that they are putting in truly awful pay-fors such as the tax on grad student tuition and the required first in first out rule (a current thread) and a variety of other things lke SALT, and the various medical related stuff including the mandate. the ending of the medical deduction etc,y I could write a bill that would be better for society in 10 minutes that would get more votes on this site and this site ts probably not a liberal bastion.
Suggest stop parroting lazy cliches. No, it does not depend on special interests, really. This kind of kneejerk thoughtless uninformed and unexamined response pollutes serious policy discourse, you know?
Krugman says only that the Republican plans would raise taxes on "many lower- and middle-income families", not even a majority, let alone "most", or as you wrote "all but the grifter princes and above."
He can't say more, because he's just quoting the CBPP report which uses the word "many", and shows that even on average, households with an income of $45K (that's more than $10K below the median) would come out better in 2025.
Here's a graphic from a Forbes opinion piece. The data is from the Joint Committee on Taxation report. In an earlier post I'd used the same source and come up with similar figures. (From memory; I didn't look back.) Ted is partly correct. Some oxen are not getting gored. There are winners and losers at almost every income level. The "many" losers are buried in the averages. But he's mistaken in saying that this is all that matters, unless we are a nation of isolated self-sufficient individuals and not joined as a society. (Joined for example for self-defense, that costs money, i.e. taxes.)
IMHO @jerry stated the situation very well and succinctly. Beyond that, it really doesn't matter whether "many" or "most" people will get tax cuts or will get hurt. One doesn't have to see yet another rehashing of the JCT data. The point has been made.
I sometimes find it difficult to tell whose point you are making in your qualifying followups. Here is the text accompanying the above graphic; underlining mine:
The figure shows that taxpayers with income between $20,000 and $30,000 unambiguously suffer a percentage tax increase and reduction in after-tax income. Taxpayers making between $30,000 and $40,000 break about even. ... Importantly, matters are worse than shown for the earning-under-$40,000 crowd because the JCT estimates do not include ... the reduced Medicaid benefits and insurance company subsidies these taxpayers drop when they are no longer subject to the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.
Here is the text accompanying the above graphic; underlining mine:
The figure shows that taxpayers with income between $20,000 and $30,000 unambiguously suffer a percentage tax increase and reduction in after-tax income. Taxpayers making between $30,000 and $40,000 break about even. ...
If we speak in absolutes like the quoted commentary above, we ignore the fact that these are averages encompassing people doing both better and worse than the figures. That same style absolute phrasing could just as easily let us state: The figure shows that taxpayers with incomes above $30K (i.e. all of the middle class and some below) unambiguously benefit from a percentage tax reduction ranging from 0.4% to 6.2%.
Even Gary Cohn was able to acknowledge that you can't just go by averages, when he said that some middle income taxpayers could wind up with higher taxes (despite the graph above).
The WashingtonPost/Tax Policy Center table is another rehash of the same data, slicing and dicing by quintiles. The Krugman blog suggests that a good chunk of the corporate tax cuts will inure to foreign investors. That leads to the conclusion that after everything is said and done, the domestic "grifter princes and above" won't get nearly the benefits shown in the TCP table or the figure above. Not quite the point you might have been trying to make.
BTW, interesting that Krugman assumes (in his blog) 1/3 of the corporate tax cut benefits will go to labor, while the TPC model assumes just 1/5 goes to labor (more going to labor would tilt the benefits more toward the 99%). Yet he conveniently refers to the TPC model when it suits his needs, here for example.
In terms of which industries would benefit and lose if this turkey passes, I'm thinking big banks gain, manufacturing loses. Big increase in budget deficit when we're close to full employment should lead to rise in interest rates (good for banks) and stronger dollar (bad for manufacturing.) But only for a couple of years, since the next recession / financial crisis will be especially brutal and may be combined with a debt/confidence crisis.
"Do you think it is responsible for Congress to vote on technically complex legislation in the absence of hearings or complete analysis?"
That's not a hard question. Republicans are constantly quoting Pelosi:
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
Of course, they quote it to put down the ACA. And they omit the context - she was talking about understanding the bill away from the political rhetoric. Not to mention that the ACA had received months of hearings and analysis.
Still, as a soundbite, it does seem to sum up the present situation. Especially since the bill's being changed even as we type.
Fact Check (Snopes): Did Nancy Pelosi Say Obamacare Must be Passed to "Find Out What Is in It"
Comments
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/11/how-the-trump-tax-cuts-would-reshape-our-economy.html
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/148831/2001605-distributional-analysis-of-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-as-passed-by-the-senate-finance-committee_1.pdf
I could write a bill that would be better for society in 10 minutes that would get more votes on this site and this site ts probably not a liberal bastion.
Suggest stop parroting lazy cliches. No, it does not depend on special interests, really. This kind of kneejerk thoughtless uninformed and unexamined response pollutes serious policy discourse, you know?
Regards-
OJ
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/opinion/lies-incoherence-and-rage-on-tax-cuts.html
He can't say more, because he's just quoting the CBPP report which uses the word "many", and shows that even on average, households with an income of $45K (that's more than $10K below the median) would come out better in 2025.
Here's a graphic from a Forbes opinion piece. The data is from the Joint Committee on Taxation report. In an earlier post I'd used the same source and come up with similar figures. (From memory; I didn't look back.)
Ted is partly correct. Some oxen are not getting gored. There are winners and losers at almost every income level. The "many" losers are buried in the averages. But he's mistaken in saying that this is all that matters, unless we are a nation of isolated self-sufficient individuals and not joined as a society. (Joined for example for self-defense, that costs money, i.e. taxes.)
IMHO @jerry stated the situation very well and succinctly. Beyond that, it really doesn't matter whether "many" or "most" people will get tax cuts or will get hurt. One doesn't have to see yet another rehashing of the JCT data. The point has been made.
The figure shows that taxpayers with income between $20,000 and $30,000 unambiguously suffer a percentage tax increase and reduction in after-tax income. Taxpayers making between $30,000 and $40,000 break about even. ... Importantly, matters are worse than shown for the earning-under-$40,000 crowd because the JCT estimates do not include ... the reduced Medicaid benefits and insurance company subsidies these taxpayers drop when they are no longer subject to the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.
Further analysis this morning, in table form:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/files/2017/11/Screenshot-2017-11-21-at-9.29.11-AM.png&w=1484
from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/11/21/the-trump-tax-plan-is-much-worse-than-you-thought-a-new-analysis-confirms-it
Note in-text emphasis on front-loading and effect over time.
Finally, a large portion of any growth, if not all of it, will likely go to foreigners:
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/tax-cuts-growth-and-leprechauns/
http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/361317-the-gop-tax-bill-is-good-but-congress-can-make-it-better
Simplistic, unqualified statements shed only heat, not light ... The tax bills are being sold as a tax cut for the middle class, not a break for low income households.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/31/you-middle-class-enough-get-tax-cut-president-trumps-plan/816604001/
If we speak in absolutes like the quoted commentary above, we ignore the fact that these are averages encompassing people doing both better and worse than the figures. That same style absolute phrasing could just as easily let us state: The figure shows that taxpayers with incomes above $30K (i.e. all of the middle class and some below) unambiguously benefit from a percentage tax reduction ranging from 0.4% to 6.2%.
Even Gary Cohn was able to acknowledge that you can't just go by averages, when he said that some middle income taxpayers could wind up with higher taxes (despite the graph above).
MSNBC: Team Trump can’t ‘guarantee’ middle class won’t face tax increase
The WashingtonPost/Tax Policy Center table is another rehash of the same data, slicing and dicing by quintiles. The Krugman blog suggests that a good chunk of the corporate tax cuts will inure to foreign investors. That leads to the conclusion that after everything is said and done, the domestic "grifter princes and above" won't get nearly the benefits shown in the TCP table or the figure above. Not quite the point you might have been trying to make.
BTW, interesting that Krugman assumes (in his blog) 1/3 of the corporate tax cut benefits will go to labor, while the TPC model assumes just 1/5 goes to labor (more going to labor would tilt the benefits more toward the 99%). Yet he conveniently refers to the TPC model when it suits his needs, here for example.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/21/meet-paul-ryans-cindy-a-single-mom-who-he-says-gets-700-from-the-tax-bill
and some 'crowd wisdom' from academe:
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform-2
http://www.taxanalysts.org/tax-analysts-blog/waste-fraud-and-abuse-senate-floor/2017/11/27/198636
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/choice-and-the-insurance-mandate/
http://www.crfb.org/papers/can-tax-reform-generate-04-additional-growth
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/28/upshot/what-the-tax-bill-would-look-like-for-25000-middle-class-families.html
and the hard questions:
https://www.ft.com/content/584e645f-fa5c-397e-933d-72e5cd7e62b3
That's not a hard question. Republicans are constantly quoting Pelosi:
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
Of course, they quote it to put down the ACA. And they omit the context - she was talking about understanding the bill away from the political rhetoric. Not to mention that the ACA had received months of hearings and analysis.
Still, as a soundbite, it does seem to sum up the present situation. Especially since the bill's being changed even as we type.
Fact Check (Snopes): Did Nancy Pelosi Say Obamacare Must be Passed to "Find Out What Is in It"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/opinion/republican-tax-lies-fed.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/12/01/as-the-senate-nears-a-vote-its-worth-remembering-how-far-from-the-norm-this-tax-reform-push-has-been