The Times has a list of ways the tax bill will change the system, but there's one thing that confuses me:
"The bill would move from the current worldwide tax system, in which income earned abroad is taxed in the United States, to a territorial system in which only domestic profits would be taxed."
That seems contrary to Republican signaling on the issue. If you're trying to convince companies to come back home, why would you adopt a system in which domestic profits would be taxed but foreign profits would not?
I'll give you 3 guesses, but you're a smart person, and you'll only need one......
You'll also notice that every decent thing in that bill for the lower and middle class is highlighted in pink, which, for the purposes of that rundown, denotes "expires in 2025". While every corporate and wealthy benefit is now chiseled in stone without a new law being passed. Beyond that, there is a straight-up assault on state and local deductions, which is directly aimed at punishing blue states SPECIFICALLY.
And every bit of money that is supposedly "saved" til 2025 by those who qualify has to be juxtaposed to what will be the IMMEDIATE effect of the repeal of the individual mandate in 2019. Any hike in premiums will be a DIRECT result of people leaving the market and the health insurance companies jacking up rates because they are losing millions of customers. No one should calculate what they actually save in this bill until they see the increase in their health insurance premiums once that takes effect. You might as well subtract that money right now, because the rate hikes (which are coming) are a direct result of this bill.
And seriously people, if you plan on still earning an income 8 years from now, look at the chained CPI provision. This is a scam. It throws out minor short-term benefits to the middle-class as a smoke-screen to usher in permanent tax cuts for the wealthy and permanent tax increases for nearly everyone else. You'll live with it soon, but your kids will live with this forever.
The Times has a list of ways the tax bill will change the system, but there's one thing that confuses me:
"The bill would move from the current worldwide tax system, in which income earned abroad is taxed in the United States, to a territorial system in which only domestic profits would be taxed."
That seems contrary to Republican signaling on the issue. If you're trying to convince companies to come back home, why would you adopt a system in which domestic profits would be taxed but foreign profits would not?
I'll give you 3 guesses, but you're a smart person, and you'll only need one......
You'll also notice that every decent thing in that bill for the lower and middle class is highlighted in pink, which, for the purposes of that rundown, denotes "expires in 2025". While every corporate and wealthy benefit is now chiseled in stone without a new law being passed. Beyond that, there is a straight-up assault on state and local deductions, which is directly aimed at punishing blue states SPECIFICALLY.
And every bit of money that is supposedly "saved" til 2025 by those who qualify has to be juxtaposed to what will be the IMMEDIATE effect of the repeal of the individual mandate in 2019. Any hike in premiums will be a DIRECT result of people leaving the market and the health insurance companies jacking up rates because they are losing millions of customers. No one should calcualte what they actually save in this bill until they see the increase in their health insurance premiums once that takes effect. You might as well subtract that money right now, because the rate hikes (which are coming) are a direct result of this bill.
And seriously people, if you plan on still earning an income 8 years from now, look at the chained CPI provision. This is a scam. It throws out minor short-term benefits to the middle-class as a smoke-screen to usher in permanent tax cuts for the wealthy and permanent tax increases for nearly everyone else. You'll live with it soon, but your kids will live with this forever.
I think the Republicans are going 'all in' on trickle down. In theory it sounds good but I guess time will tell if it actually works. We may not get that time if they lose Congress and the presidency in 2020. As a scientist I'd like the passage of time to prove or disprove the experiment once and for all but the people (and their votes) are very fickle...
The Times has a list of ways the tax bill will change the system, but there's one thing that confuses me:
"The bill would move from the current worldwide tax system, in which income earned abroad is taxed in the United States, to a territorial system in which only domestic profits would be taxed."
That seems contrary to Republican signaling on the issue. If you're trying to convince companies to come back home, why would you adopt a system in which domestic profits would be taxed but foreign profits would not?
It's been a while, but IIRC... Apple does not get taxed by the US for profits it makes in, say, France. Apple does get taxed by the US if it tries to bring those profits back to the US. So as long as Apple's France revenues get used in France--or, at the least, remain on the books in France--the US will leave those untaxed. The change here is the elimination of the US tax when those profits are repatriated.
This jives with the stated goal--right now, Apple is incentivized to spend those profits in France, either as R&D or manufacturing or whatever. The change would allow for Apple to bring those profits back to the US and then spend them here instead.
The Times has a list of ways the tax bill will change the system, but there's one thing that confuses me:
"The bill would move from the current worldwide tax system, in which income earned abroad is taxed in the United States, to a territorial system in which only domestic profits would be taxed."
That seems contrary to Republican signaling on the issue. If you're trying to convince companies to come back home, why would you adopt a system in which domestic profits would be taxed but foreign profits would not?
It's been a while, but IIRC... Apple does not get taxed by the US for profits it makes in, say, France. Apple does get taxed by the US if it tries to bring those profits back to the US. So as long as Apple's France revenues get used in France--or, at the least, remain on the books in France--the US will leave those untaxed. The change here is the elimination of the US tax when those profits are repatriated.
This jives with the stated goal--right now, Apple is incentivized to spend those profits in France, either as R&D or manufacturing or whatever. The change would allow for Apple to bring those profits back to the US and then spend them here instead.
over 6000 lobbyists wrote this tax bill, we should not be shocked it is full of loopholes and provisions that favor the ultra wealthy. This legislation will be bad for the average citizens of the United States. Republicans are going to pass it regardless just to say they did something for their most important constituents - their corporate donors. Oh and they are repealing the individual mandate so Healthcare premiums will rise and 13 million people will lose their health insurance.
Up next, Medicare cuts and social security cuts because golly gee we have no money now that they passed this tax cuts for the rich bill.
Well I took a look at it and at least for the first few years I'll be paying less taxes. I also won't need to pay somebody else to do my taxes for the first time in years so that saves me money too. I'm far from ultra-wealthy btw...
One thing I don't like is getting rid of the child exemptions. I won't have to worry about alternating the exemption for my little girl with my ex at least, but it still seems to punish people for having large families. Not sure what that was supposed to accomplish. Are Catholics not paying their fair share???
So you might be in a situation like Paul Ryan's "Cindy"
They aren't even bothering with a rhetorical strategy as coherent (if absurd) as "trickle down." They've decided that public opinion is almost irrelevant compared to the desires of billionaire donors, so they're just half-heartedly lying about what's in the bill while mostly ignoring the fact that it's wildly unpopular.
The Times has a list of ways the tax bill will change the system, but there's one thing that confuses me:
"The bill would move from the current worldwide tax system, in which income earned abroad is taxed in the United States, to a territorial system in which only domestic profits would be taxed."
That seems contrary to Republican signaling on the issue. If you're trying to convince companies to come back home, why would you adopt a system in which domestic profits would be taxed but foreign profits would not?
I'll give you 3 guesses, but you're a smart person, and you'll only need one......
You'll also notice that every decent thing in that bill for the lower and middle class is highlighted in pink, which, for the purposes of that rundown, denotes "expires in 2025". While every corporate and wealthy benefit is now chiseled in stone without a new law being passed. Beyond that, there is a straight-up assault on state and local deductions, which is directly aimed at punishing blue states SPECIFICALLY.
And every bit of money that is supposedly "saved" til 2025 by those who qualify has to be juxtaposed to what will be the IMMEDIATE effect of the repeal of the individual mandate in 2019. Any hike in premiums will be a DIRECT result of people leaving the market and the health insurance companies jacking up rates because they are losing millions of customers. No one should calcualte what they actually save in this bill until they see the increase in their health insurance premiums once that takes effect. You might as well subtract that money right now, because the rate hikes (which are coming) are a direct result of this bill.
And seriously people, if you plan on still earning an income 8 years from now, look at the chained CPI provision. This is a scam. It throws out minor short-term benefits to the middle-class as a smoke-screen to usher in permanent tax cuts for the wealthy and permanent tax increases for nearly everyone else. You'll live with it soon, but your kids will live with this forever.
Nothing is permanent. If the Republican gamble on trickle-down doesn't materialize this will be rewritten in 2020 (or a bit later).
Edit: Explanation The Republicans are showing quite clearly that you only need a simple majority to accomplish your goals. Unless the Dems are complete morons, this will come back to hurt the Reps when the tables have turned. If the tables don't turn, then this is the will of the people...
It's not a gamble. They don't actually believe this is going to massively grow the economy. Bob Corker wanted to insert a "trigger" to automatically adjust the tax cuts if they didn't end up producing the claimed results, and the GOP completely shut that idea down. This is nothing but a short-term personal enrichment scheme for congressional Republicans and their wealthy friends.
It's not a gamble. They don't actually believe this is going to massively grow the economy. Bob Corker wanted to insert a "trigger" to automatically adjust the tax cuts if they didn't end up producing the claimed results, and the GOP completely shut that idea down. This is nothing but a short-term personal enrichment scheme for congressional Republicans and their wealthy friends.
Then it won't last long. Even I don't think people are THAT stupid!
You'll also notice that every decent thing in that bill for the lower and middle class is highlighted in pink, which, for the purposes of that rundown, denotes "expires in 2025".
The theoretical expiration is...
1) a technicality. (It's apparently part of the bill in order to satisfy some weird rules that govern Senate budget proceedings since the 80s, see here I think, although I can't claim to undertstand the details.)
2) not relevant in practice, because it's safe to say that a follow-up law will be passed in time before that date, regardless of which party is in power then. (They always do. Laws, and budget-related laws in particular, are often made for the short-term and then extended or updated or replaced when needed; that's kinda how this democracy works.)
Beyond that, there is a straight-up assault on state and local deductions, which is directly aimed at punishing blue states SPECIFICALLY.
Again, not an expert, but it looks to me like this is just a common-sense removal/weakening of an unfair tax benefit for wealthy people in states with high property/income taxes.
SALT deductions allow states/counties to raise their local property/income taxes, reap all the fiscal benefits of those tax hikes, but have some of the burden shared by all taxpayers across the nation. Maybe from a cold calculating political perspective, you like a system that punishes states/counties with low taxes by making them help pay the higher taxes of other places, and thus creates an incentive for an "arms race" to higher taxes - but surely you don't think it's fair?
Also, wealthy people tend to be able to make the most of tax deductions, right? So those will be the most affected by the semi-removal (they're not even removed completely) of the SALT deductions. Shouldn't you welcome that?
They aren't even bothering with a rhetorical strategy as coherent (if absurd) as "trickle down." They've decided that public opinion is almost irrelevant compared to the desires of billionaire donors, so they're just half-heartedly lying about what's in the bill while mostly ignoring the fact that it's wildly unpopular.
Again, that's political suicide and the long-term benefits to the rich wouldd be non-existent. Do you really think they're that stupid? I think this is an all or nothing gamble on trickle-down myself. Any short-term benefit to the rich will be completely snuffed out if this doesn't benefit the middle class in some way or another. I refuse to believe that the wealthy would be that stupid, but then again, Marie Antoinette...
You'll also notice that every decent thing in that bill for the lower and middle class is highlighted in pink, which, for the purposes of that rundown, denotes "expires in 2025".
The theoretical expiration is...
1) a technicality. (It's apparently part of the bill in order to satisfy some weird rules that govern Senate budget proceedings since the 80s, see here I think, although I can't claim to undertstand the details.)
2) not relevant in practice, because it's safe to say that a follow-up law will be passed in time before that date, regardless of which party is in power then. (They always do. Laws, and budget-related laws in particular, are often made for the short-term and then extended or updated or replaced when needed; that's kinda how this democracy works.)
Beyond that, there is a straight-up assault on state and local deductions, which is directly aimed at punishing blue states SPECIFICALLY.
Again, not an expert, but it looks to me like this is just a common-sense removal/weakening of an unfair tax benefit for wealthy people in states with high property/income taxes.
SALT deductions allow states/counties to raise their local property/income taxes, reap all the fiscal benefits of those tax hikes, but have some of the burden shared by all taxpayers across the nation. Maybe from a cold calculating political perspective, you like a system that punishes states/counties with low taxes by making them help pay the higher taxes of other places, and thus creates an incentive for an "arms race" to higher taxes - but surely you don't think it's fair?
Also, wealthy people tend to be able to make the most of tax deductions, right? So those will be the most affected by the semi-removal (they're not even removed completely) of the SALT deductions. Shouldn't you welcome that?
That's because the wealthy can afford to hire accountants to do their taxes for them. I must stress again that this is precisely because our tax code is TOO GODDAMNED COMPLICATED!!!
The Times has a list of ways the tax bill will change the system, but there's one thing that confuses me:
"The bill would move from the current worldwide tax system, in which income earned abroad is taxed in the United States, to a territorial system in which only domestic profits would be taxed."
That seems contrary to Republican signaling on the issue. If you're trying to convince companies to come back home, why would you adopt a system in which domestic profits would be taxed but foreign profits would not?
It's been a while, but IIRC... Apple does not get taxed by the US for profits it makes in, say, France. Apple does get taxed by the US if it tries to bring those profits back to the US. So as long as Apple's France revenues get used in France--or, at the least, remain on the books in France--the US will leave those untaxed. The change here is the elimination of the US tax when those profits are repatriated.
This jives with the stated goal--right now, Apple is incentivized to spend those profits in France, either as R&D or manufacturing or whatever. The change would allow for Apple to bring those profits back to the US and then spend them here instead.
Again, too friggin' complicated!
It's international taxation as applied to a multinational, a lawyer equivalent of rocket science. You don't go to the moon if you set pi equal to 3.
It's actually a good change, too. The taxation on repatriated funds was (again IIRC) a change during the Obama administration, with the goal trying to sway companies that were considering offshoring operations to remain in the US. It had little effect and, perversely, essentially gave companies that offshored reason to never return.
The Times has a list of ways the tax bill will change the system, but there's one thing that confuses me:
"The bill would move from the current worldwide tax system, in which income earned abroad is taxed in the United States, to a territorial system in which only domestic profits would be taxed."
That seems contrary to Republican signaling on the issue. If you're trying to convince companies to come back home, why would you adopt a system in which domestic profits would be taxed but foreign profits would not?
It's been a while, but IIRC... Apple does not get taxed by the US for profits it makes in, say, France. Apple does get taxed by the US if it tries to bring those profits back to the US. So as long as Apple's France revenues get used in France--or, at the least, remain on the books in France--the US will leave those untaxed. The change here is the elimination of the US tax when those profits are repatriated.
This jives with the stated goal--right now, Apple is incentivized to spend those profits in France, either as R&D or manufacturing or whatever. The change would allow for Apple to bring those profits back to the US and then spend them here instead.
Again, too friggin' complicated!
It's international taxation as applied to a multinational, a lawyer equivalent of rocket science. You don't go to the moon if you set pi equal to 3.
It's actually a good change, too. The taxation on repatriated funds was (again IIRC) a change during the Obama administration, with the goal trying to sway companies that were considering offshoring operations to remain in the US. It had little effect and, perversely, essentially gave companies that offshored reason to never return.
Well unless you're in favor of the UN taking over the process (which might not be a bad idea in the case of multi-national corporations) it's still unnecessarily complicated unless every nation treats it the same way. That would actually make the UN far more relevant. Money spent for the benefit of the entire world (or at least all UN members) is kind of a cool idea!
They aren't even bothering with a rhetorical strategy as coherent (if absurd) as "trickle down." They've decided that public opinion is almost irrelevant compared to the desires of billionaire donors, so they're just half-heartedly lying about what's in the bill while mostly ignoring the fact that it's wildly unpopular.
Again, that's political suicide and the long-term benefits to the rich wouldd be non-existent. Do you really think they're that stupid? I think this is an all or nothing gamble on trickle-down myself. Any short-term benefit to the rich will be completely snuffed out if this doesn't benefit the middle class in some way or another. I refuse to believe that the wealthy would be that stupid, but then again, Marie Antoinette...
The level of inequality right now in the United States is worse than it was during the French Revolution.
The top 1 percent used to control a little over 30 percent of the wealth, they now control 40 percent. This is before the Republican Tax Scam that will redistribute wealth from the lower and middle class to the rich.
The Gini coefficient scales from 0 to 1, where 0 means each portion of the population gathers an equal amount of income and 1 means a single person collects everything. Ancient Rome, which was built on the backs of poor farmers, slaves, and laborers had more equality than we do today.
Researchers’ models put the highest Ginis in the ancient Old World at .59, close to that of contemporary Greece’s .56 and Spain’s .58. In 2000, China’s .73 and the United States was close to .80. The 2016 Allianz Global Wealth Report puts the U.S. Gini at .81 and [Tim] Kohler [the study’s lead author] has seen the U.S. Gini pegged at .85, “which is probably the highest wealth inequality for any developed country right now.”
This tax scam will make things worse.
“We could be concerned in the United States, that if Ginis get too high, we could be inviting revolution, or we could be inviting state collapse. There’s only a few things that are going to decrease our Ginis dramatically.” According to “The Great Leveler,” a 2017 book by Walter Scheidel, a professor of ancient history at Stanford University, decreasing inequality is not easy and “usually comes about through plague, revolution, mass warfare or state collapse.”
In other words, the rich once they have theirs they will rig the system to ensure they keep it and keep you from taking what they think is theirs.
I live near a country club on the west side of Vegas. The non-stop parade of Rolls, Bentleys, Lamborghinis, Ferraris, etc. coming and going from that place is a little sickening. Sheldon Adelson lives there. The Google satellite view shows he and his neighbors have enormous enclaves that sometimes include full-on waterparks. They always have the obligatory tennis and basketball courts. One even has their own private 3-hole golf course.
Lucky for them Congress is making sure they can continue to expand their wealth. Maybe that one family will finally be able to grow from 3-holes to a 9-hole course like they always wanted.
They aren't even bothering with a rhetorical strategy as coherent (if absurd) as "trickle down." They've decided that public opinion is almost irrelevant compared to the desires of billionaire donors, so they're just half-heartedly lying about what's in the bill while mostly ignoring the fact that it's wildly unpopular.
Again, that's political suicide and the long-term benefits to the rich wouldd be non-existent. Do you really think they're that stupid? I think this is an all or nothing gamble on trickle-down myself. Any short-term benefit to the rich will be completely snuffed out if this doesn't benefit the middle class in some way or another. I refuse to believe that the wealthy would be that stupid, but then again, Marie Antoinette...
The level of inequality right now in the United States is worse than it was during the French Revolution.
The top 1 percent used to control a little over 30 percent of the wealth, they now control 40 percent. This is before the Republican Tax Scam that will redistribute wealth from the lower and middle class to the rich.
The Gini coefficient scales from 0 to 1, where 0 means each portion of the population gathers an equal amount of income and 1 means a single person collects everything. Ancient Rome, which was built on the backs of poor farmers, slaves, and laborers had more equality than we do today.
Researchers’ models put the highest Ginis in the ancient Old World at .59, close to that of contemporary Greece’s .56 and Spain’s .58. In 2000, China’s .73 and the United States was close to .80. The 2016 Allianz Global Wealth Report puts the U.S. Gini at .81 and [Tim] Kohler [the study’s lead author] has seen the U.S. Gini pegged at .85, “which is probably the highest wealth inequality for any developed country right now.”
This tax scam will make things worse.
“We could be concerned in the United States, that if Ginis get too high, we could be inviting revolution, or we could be inviting state collapse. There’s only a few things that are going to decrease our Ginis dramatically.” According to “The Great Leveler,” a 2017 book by Walter Scheidel, a professor of ancient history at Stanford University, decreasing inequality is not easy and “usually comes about through plague, revolution, mass warfare or state collapse.”
In other words, the rich once they have theirs they will rig the system to ensure they keep it and keep you from taking what they think is theirs.
I live near a country club on the west side of Vegas. The non-stop parade of Rolls, Bentleys, Lamborghinis, Ferraris, etc. coming and going from that place is a little sickening. Sheldon Adelson lives there. The Google satellite view shows he and his neighbors have enormous enclaves that sometimes include full-on waterparks. They always have the obligatory tennis and basketball courts. One even has their own private 3-hole golf course.
Lucky for them Congress is making sure they can continue to expand their wealth. Maybe that one family will finally be able to grow from 3-holes to a 9-hole course like they always wanted.
I've never wanted a golf course or a Bentley so I can't relate. Does this make me a bad person?
I think the Republicans are going 'all in' on trickle down. In theory it sounds good but I guess time will tell if it actually works. We may not get that time if they lose Congress and the presidency in 2020. As a scientist I'd like the passage of time to prove or disprove the experiment once and for all but the people (and their votes) are very fickle...
Didn't the Reagan-Bush years already disprove trickle down?
I think the Republicans are going 'all in' on trickle down. In theory it sounds good but I guess time will tell if it actually works. We may not get that time if they lose Congress and the presidency in 2020. As a scientist I'd like the passage of time to prove or disprove the experiment once and for all but the people (and their votes) are very fickle...
Didn't the Reagan-Bush years already disprove trickle down?
I don't think so because yet again they weren't around long enough. It's the same for the left-wing theories. The people don't have the patience to test them for long enough to dispel them one way or another...
You'll also notice that every decent thing in that bill for the lower and middle class is highlighted in pink, which, for the purposes of that rundown, denotes "expires in 2025".
The theoretical expiration is...
1) a technicality. (It's apparently part of the bill in order to satisfy some weird rules that govern Senate budget proceedings since the 80s, see here I think, although I can't claim to undertstand the details.)
2) not relevant in practice, because it's safe to say that a follow-up law will be passed in time before that date, regardless of which party is in power then. (They always do. Laws, and budget-related laws in particular, are often made for the short-term and then extended or updated or replaced when needed; that's kinda how this democracy works.)
Beyond that, there is a straight-up assault on state and local deductions, which is directly aimed at punishing blue states SPECIFICALLY.
Again, not an expert, but it looks to me like this is just a common-sense removal/weakening of an unfair tax benefit for wealthy people in states with high property/income taxes.
SALT deductions allow states/counties to raise their local property/income taxes, reap all the fiscal benefits of those tax hikes, but have some of the burden shared by all taxpayers across the nation. Maybe from a cold calculating political perspective, you like a system that punishes states/counties with low taxes by making them help pay the higher taxes of other places, and thus creates an incentive for an "arms race" to higher taxes - but surely you don't think it's fair?
Also, wealthy people tend to be able to make the most of tax deductions, right? So those will be the most affected by the semi-removal (they're not even removed completely) of the SALT deductions. Shouldn't you welcome that?
It isn't even remotely a technicality. It's the whole reason for the bill. To change it, specific laws would have to be passed in 2025 to revert things to how they are now. If those laws aren't passed, the situation WILL BE a tax increase for the lower and middle class. The entire bill is written to do everything it can to LET them expire, while specifically making the corporate tax cuts permanent. If they wanted the cuts for average people to be permanent, they would have made them so. They didn't. They expire and the provisions for the rich don't.
The idea that red states with low taxes contribute more to the federal coffers in regards to tax revenue is laughable. The top ten "taker" states are almost all red. The bottom five in reliance on the federal government are all blue. By an order of magnitude, across all 50 states, red states receive FAR more back than they put in, and blue states, who take care of their own citizens (you know, that federalism Republicans CLAIM to care about) don't take as much from the federal government conservatives claim to hate so much. But NOW all of a sudden on nearly EVERY issue that comes up, be it Net Neutrality or this, the GOP is attempting to usurp the rights of blue states on everything from gun and internet regulation to taxation on their own residents. The basic tenant of their entire philosophy of government is sham. Moreover, blue states generate almost 70% of this country's GDP, DESPITE having (and believing in the concept) of higher taxes. If this country was more like Alabama and Mississippi than California or Minnesota from a business perspective, the entire economy would be at the bottom of a toilet.
Point being, Republicans seem to have completely abandoned even the CONCEPT of federalism since Trump took office, and it has been the #1 defining trait of the party and the conservative movement in general for over 100 years. And it was all a steaming load of horseshit, mostly used as a bludgeon to stifle civil rights. The GOP abandoning the principle of local and state government rule is sort of like the New York Yankees announcing they are no longer going to play baseball and are instead going to move forward as a field hockey team.
Nothing is permanent. If the Republican gamble on trickle-down doesn't materialize this will be rewritten in 2020 (or a bit later).
Edit: Explanation The Republicans are showing quite clearly that you only need a simple majority to accomplish your goals. Unless the Dems are complete morons, this will come back to hurt the Reps when the tables have turned. If the tables don't turn, then this is the will of the people...
Also, it is questionable to say that the tables not turning would mean this is the will of the people, because of Republican gerrymandering. At least in the House. The Senate is (currently) more balanced and we'll see what happens there.
Gerrymandering will not work at some point. You're expecting something catastrophic for the left when this is precisely what would be catastrophic for the right. If the Republicans want to guarantee their insignificance for the next generation or two, they'll do exactly what you fear. I just don't think they're that stupid...
It's so crazy that the more balanced chamber is the one where Californians are underrepresented by a factor of 6 and Wyomingites are overrepresented by a factor of 10+.
It's so crazy that the more balanced chamber is the one where Californians are underrepresented by a factor of 6 and Wyomingites are overrepresented by a factor of 10+.
The system put in place was meant for 13 colonies along one coastline. It is horrendous idea when spanning a continent and nearly 5 times as many separate entities. I've broken down the numbers before about the disparity in populations then vs. now. I'm not gonna do it again because it was too much work for a forum post the first time, but it can be found if someone wants to go back and look.
Meanwhile, we haven't mentioned that Nikki Haley is trying to beat the drums of war in regards to Iran at the UN. I have an idea. Maybe, considering what happened with Iraq, the US shuts the hell up about what is or isn't going on in Muslim countries we obviously want to invade for about, say, 2 or 3 decades, at which time we might have a shred of credibility back on the issue.
It's so crazy that the more balanced chamber is the one where Californians are underrepresented by a factor of 6 and Wyomingites are overrepresented by a factor of 10+.
The system put in place was meant for 13 colonies along one coastline. It is horrendous idea when spanning a continent and nearly 5 times as many separate entities. I've broken down the numbers before about the disparity in populations then vs. now. I'm not gonna do it again because it was too much work for a forum post the first time, but it can be found if someone wants to go back and look.
Personally, I think the founding fathers were geniuses for precisely what you're bitching about. Time is on your side. What they put in place will prevent revolution. Patience my friends...
Apparently Heather Heyer's mother (the girl who was killed in Charlottesville) had to have her daughter's ashes buried in a secret grave to prevent vandalism from white supremacists threatening her family:
My parents think I'm a liberal but don't really fight me a whole lot. My daughter will be more liberal than I am and I don't really have a problem with that. My parents and I are not atypical of society as a whole (at least I don't think so) so things will change with the passage of time. The difference is how fast you want the changes. Forcing your will on people is not the same as people agreeing with you. One way is a battle, the other is proving your point. Prove your points and society will follow.
Apparently Heather Heyer's mother (the girl who was killed in Charlottesville) had to have her daughter's ashes buried in a secret grave to prevent vandalism from white supremacists threatening her family:
That is horrible. I really think I'm right about the passage of time thing but it is small consolation to the people of the here and now. I'm more of a big picture thinker so thank you for the reminder that my way of thinking doesn't console everyone. Life sucks in so many ways...
Apparently Heather Heyer's mother (the girl who was killed in Charlottesville) had to have her daughter's ashes buried in a secret grave to prevent vandalism from white supremacists threatening her family:
That is horrible. I really think I'm right about the passage of time thing but it is small consolation to the people of the here and now. I'm more of a big picture thinker so thank you for the reminder that my way of thinking doesn't console everyone. Life sucks in so many ways...
You'd think if they hated her (and the people protesting them that day) that much, that her being dead would be enough consolation. Who sends hate mail or threats to a grieving mother?? Case in point, when my mother died, my classmate who was sort of a bully (and basically my arch-nemesis in elementary school) totally unexpectedly came to the funeral (even though we became cordial as the years went on, we were never close) and I remember seeing him crying in the back of the church. That's how normal humans react even if you had a bad history with someone when someone dies. I realize most of these goons wouldn't have actually done it, but you can be sure with the climate in this country that a couple people would have traveled god knows how many miles to deface her gravestone or memorial. Why?? What's the point?? I read Youtube comments about this girl to this day that make my blood boil. There is a destructive form of nihilism young males are engaged in on the internet in the last few years that is really troubling. A movement that has become obsessed with being as terrible as possible on purpose to prove some kind of point.
Comments
You'll also notice that every decent thing in that bill for the lower and middle class is highlighted in pink, which, for the purposes of that rundown, denotes "expires in 2025". While every corporate and wealthy benefit is now chiseled in stone without a new law being passed. Beyond that, there is a straight-up assault on state and local deductions, which is directly aimed at punishing blue states SPECIFICALLY.
And every bit of money that is supposedly "saved" til 2025 by those who qualify has to be juxtaposed to what will be the IMMEDIATE effect of the repeal of the individual mandate in 2019. Any hike in premiums will be a DIRECT result of people leaving the market and the health insurance companies jacking up rates because they are losing millions of customers. No one should calculate what they actually save in this bill until they see the increase in their health insurance premiums once that takes effect. You might as well subtract that money right now, because the rate hikes (which are coming) are a direct result of this bill.
And seriously people, if you plan on still earning an income 8 years from now, look at the chained CPI provision. This is a scam. It throws out minor short-term benefits to the middle-class as a smoke-screen to usher in permanent tax cuts for the wealthy and permanent tax increases for nearly everyone else. You'll live with it soon, but your kids will live with this forever.
This jives with the stated goal--right now, Apple is incentivized to spend those profits in France, either as R&D or manufacturing or whatever. The change would allow for Apple to bring those profits back to the US and then spend them here instead.
So you might be in a situation like Paul Ryan's "Cindy"
That $700 and more will be eaten by the above.
You get $700 bucks, the rich get hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in tax breaks. And next they'll be cutting social services.
Edit: Explanation
The Republicans are showing quite clearly that you only need a simple majority to accomplish your goals. Unless the Dems are complete morons, this will come back to hurt the Reps when the tables have turned. If the tables don't turn, then this is the will of the people...
1) a technicality. (It's apparently part of the bill in order to satisfy some weird rules that govern Senate budget proceedings since the 80s, see here I think, although I can't claim to undertstand the details.)
2) not relevant in practice, because it's safe to say that a follow-up law will be passed in time before that date, regardless of which party is in power then. (They always do. Laws, and budget-related laws in particular, are often made for the short-term and then extended or updated or replaced when needed; that's kinda how this democracy works.)
So, a non-issue.
Why, then, are you so hung up about it? Again, not an expert, but it looks to me like this is just a common-sense removal/weakening of an unfair tax benefit for wealthy people in states with high property/income taxes.
SALT deductions allow states/counties to raise their local property/income taxes, reap all the fiscal benefits of those tax hikes, but have some of the burden shared by all taxpayers across the nation.
Maybe from a cold calculating political perspective, you like a system that punishes states/counties with low taxes by making them help pay the higher taxes of other places, and thus creates an incentive for an "arms race" to higher taxes - but surely you don't think it's fair?
Also, wealthy people tend to be able to make the most of tax deductions, right? So those will be the most affected by the semi-removal (they're not even removed completely) of the SALT deductions. Shouldn't you welcome that?
It's actually a good change, too. The taxation on repatriated funds was (again IIRC) a change during the Obama administration, with the goal trying to sway companies that were considering offshoring operations to remain in the US. It had little effect and, perversely, essentially gave companies that offshored reason to never return.
The top 1 percent used to control a little over 30 percent of the wealth, they now control 40 percent. This is before the Republican Tax Scam that will redistribute wealth from the lower and middle class to the rich.
The Gini coefficient scales from 0 to 1, where 0 means each portion of the population gathers an equal amount of income and 1 means a single person collects everything. Ancient Rome, which was built on the backs of poor farmers, slaves, and laborers had more equality than we do today.
Researchers’ models put the highest Ginis in the ancient Old World at .59, close to that of contemporary Greece’s .56 and Spain’s .58. In 2000, China’s .73 and the United States was close to .80. The 2016 Allianz Global Wealth Report puts the U.S. Gini at .81 and [Tim] Kohler [the study’s lead author] has seen the U.S. Gini pegged at .85, “which is probably the highest wealth inequality for any developed country right now.”
This tax scam will make things worse.
“We could be concerned in the United States, that if Ginis get too high, we could be inviting revolution, or we could be inviting state collapse. There’s only a few things that are going to decrease our Ginis dramatically.” According to “The Great Leveler,” a 2017 book by Walter Scheidel, a professor of ancient history at Stanford University, decreasing inequality is not easy and “usually comes about through plague, revolution, mass warfare or state collapse.”
In other words, the rich once they have theirs they will rig the system to ensure they keep it and keep you from taking what they think is theirs.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/revolution-u-s-brewing/
See:
The idea that red states with low taxes contribute more to the federal coffers in regards to tax revenue is laughable. The top ten "taker" states are almost all red. The bottom five in reliance on the federal government are all blue. By an order of magnitude, across all 50 states, red states receive FAR more back than they put in, and blue states, who take care of their own citizens (you know, that federalism Republicans CLAIM to care about) don't take as much from the federal government conservatives claim to hate so much. But NOW all of a sudden on nearly EVERY issue that comes up, be it Net Neutrality or this, the GOP is attempting to usurp the rights of blue states on everything from gun and internet regulation to taxation on their own residents. The basic tenant of their entire philosophy of government is sham. Moreover, blue states generate almost 70% of this country's GDP, DESPITE having (and believing in the concept) of higher taxes. If this country was more like Alabama and Mississippi than California or Minnesota from a business perspective, the entire economy would be at the bottom of a toilet.
Point being, Republicans seem to have completely abandoned even the CONCEPT of federalism since Trump took office, and it has been the #1 defining trait of the party and the conservative movement in general for over 100 years. And it was all a steaming load of horseshit, mostly used as a bludgeon to stifle civil rights. The GOP abandoning the principle of local and state government rule is sort of like the New York Yankees announcing they are no longer going to play baseball and are instead going to move forward as a field hockey team.
Also, it is questionable to say that the tables not turning would mean this is the will of the people, because of Republican gerrymandering. At least in the House. The Senate is (currently) more balanced and we'll see what happens there.
Meanwhile, we haven't mentioned that Nikki Haley is trying to beat the drums of war in regards to Iran at the UN. I have an idea. Maybe, considering what happened with Iraq, the US shuts the hell up about what is or isn't going on in Muslim countries we obviously want to invade for about, say, 2 or 3 decades, at which time we might have a shred of credibility back on the issue.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/heather-heyer-grave-secret-hide-nazis-charlottesville-attack-mother-reveals-a8113056.html
My parents think I'm a liberal but don't really fight me a whole lot. My daughter will be more liberal than I am and I don't really have a problem with that. My parents and I are not atypical of society as a whole (at least I don't think so) so things will change with the passage of time. The difference is how fast you want the changes. Forcing your will on people is not the same as people agreeing with you. One way is a battle, the other is proving your point. Prove your points and society will follow.