The interesting thing is the number of conservatives starting to shrink in horror at the deficit-busting nature of the proposals (particularly those who saw firsthand the problems of the 2001/3 tax cuts).
Let’s hope they hold the line, @dfbdfb.
My opinion…every single provision of this bill should have an expiration date that is the same. Why would some be permanent cuts and others not? I mean I know…but I don’t think this should be the case.
Make the business cuts also expire…and see where this goes.
I think this means Daines is now a no.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/361992-montana-republican-opposes-current-version-of-tax-bill
The aide added that while Daines is currently a no on the measure, he “remains optimistic and is continuing to work with colleagues.”
Daines joins Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) in rejecting the current version of the bill.
I don’t trust this “current version” business. You know they are probably all working behind closed doors so that the differences between the house and senate versions are ironed out before the senate vote. Maybe there will be an early blizzard…
Translation: He is still open to the right bribe for his state.
Corker said he was visited by Treasury officials today, but they did not bring him the modeling he wants to see. I’d guess they won’t vote this week.
NYT visualization of how the tax bill affects middle class taxpayers in 2018:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/28/upshot/what-the-tax-bill-would-look-like-for-25000-middle-class-families.html?smid=tw-upshotnyt&smtyp=cur
Majority get tax cuts, but some get big increases. By 2027, virtually all get increases.
Senate proposal is becoming even more skewed towards the super rich.
So this is why Daines and Johnson are holding out - because they want more for the 1% (of course, likely framing it as something to help small business owners).
And Lankford and others who claim to care about the ballooning deficit want to build in tax increases to offset losses if they become unmanageable. Tax increases on whom? Is the corporate tax cut on the table? No one is saying.
The devil is in the details and the devil seems to be laughing at us.
New CBO report on the Senate tax bill:
Page 10 of the CBO report shows the impact of both taxation *and spending/i due to this tax bill on various income groups.
$20-30k and lower all produce a net positive for the government (i.e. they are worse off) from 2019-2027.
$75-100k and higher all produce a net negative for the government (i.e. they are better off) from 2019-2027.
The income groups in between produce a net negative for the government (i.e. they are better off) initially in 2019, but later produce a net positive for the government (i.e. they are worse off) by 2027.
Page 4 notes that removing the ACA individual mandate would reduce the number of people insured by 4 million in 2019 and 13 million in 2027.
If you look at the NYT visualization, you see what’s going on there. About half of the households between $75K and $140K are worse off in 2027, and about half are better off. The ones who are worse off aren’t much worse off, but some of the ones who are better off are a lot better off.
In other words, $75K-140K are better off only because a few households get a big windfall-- I assume these are the folks getting pass-through income. Most households see a minimal change.
However, the expected loss of medical insurance for many in the $30k and less income group tends to become real money for those who are not perfectly healthy (as in need to spend on medical bills, or suffer untreated medical problems that can increase time unable to earn money from working, etc.). It is obviously real money to the government in the CBO analysis.
They get a tax cut, and then it goes away. Individual tax cuts go away, but corporate tax cuts don’t go away.
Also, please explain to me how someone who would have signed up for Medicaid, but now won’t sign up for Medicaid under this tax bill, is better off. Because it seems to me they’re worse off, particularly if they get sick.
“Also, please explain to me how someone who would have signed up for Medicaid, but now won’t sign up for Medicaid under this tax bill, is better off.”
Why wouldn’t they sign up?
Am I correct that when the individual tax cuts go away, the other individual changes stick around? That is, we go back to the standard exemptions and the old tax brackets, but we still can’t deduct our student loan interest?
The savings from eliminating the individual mandate come from people who are entitled to Medicaid not signing up for it. Evidently, according to the CBO, because of the mandate people investigate their insurance options and discover that they are eligible for Medicaid, which is free.
And note that Medicaid costs the government virtually nothing if the enrollee doesn’t get any care. The government doesn’t pay a “premium.” Instead, it just pays providers for care for people who have Medicaid. So the savings from Medicaid here is because people who need health care won’t get it, because they didn’t know they could get it for free. Yay?
But hey, who cares if a restaurant server gets her insulin, as long as Richie McBillionaire’s socialite daughter gets a big inheritance, right?
Many people who are eligible for Medicaid don’t know they are. Now that they’re not required to have insurance, they won’t bother trying to get it.
That’s how people don’t sign up for medicaid with the mandate repeal.
I’m so angry that in the past two the government has been shut down over spending now that doesn’t seem to matter to the very folks who shut down the govt last time. As long as the donors get what they want screw everyone else.
Looks like the US is shifting from a “growth” consensus (the ideal of positive economic growth, distributed widely enough to benefit all) to an “extractive” mentality (the desire for each to take the largest percentage of the economy, regardless of whether there is positive economic growth).