Republican Sen. Ron Johnson Opposes GOP Senate Tax Package

Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) said he opposes the Senate Republican tax package, becoming the first GOP voice of dissent that, if it gains momentum, could force significant changes or jeopardize the party’s goal to pass the bill before the end of the year.

“If they can pass it without me, let them,” Mr. Johnson said in an interview Wednesday, adding that the plan unfairly benefits corporations more than other types of businesses. “I’m not going to vote for this tax package.”

Any Republican opposition is significant because GOP leaders are counting on near universal support from within the party to pass a bill on party line votes. With 52 seats in the Senate, Republicans can lose no more than two votes unless they can somehow find a way to win votes from Democrats.

Other Senate Republicans have expressed concerns. Jeff Flake of Arizona, for example, has worried about deficits and Susan Collins of Maine has worried about Republican plans to repeal the insurance coverage mandate in the Affordable Care Act as part of a tax overhaul.

Until now, no Senate Republican has come out definitively against the GOP tax plan. The risk for GOP leaders is that other Republicans get behind Mr. Johnson’s opposition, and either stop the bill or slow its passage, depriving Republicans of the chance to boost after-tax income household income next year, during the elections.

Still, in a statement issued in the late afternoon, Mr. Johnson said he hoped that Republicans could address the disparity so he could support the final version of the tax bill. Such changes could be expensive and might force tax writers to make other changes. .

“I repeat...ten percent...flat tax...No exceptions,no deductions everyone has 10 percent skin in every years game...everyone.”

I agree with the principle, but there are complications when you say no deductions.

Surely a business owner should be allowed to deduct expenses, otherwise, if they had to pay 10% of gross revenue that would mean their tax could very likely exceed their profit margin!

And if a business can deduct expenses, it stands to reason that employees earning a salary should also have a standard deduction to reflect basic minimum living expenses.

I checked out taxes in 1961 and for all years from 1913 to 2017. I don’t have the computer expertise to transfer the graph to this thread. Perhaps someone else could do that? In 1961 the top earner tax rate was 91%. Kennedy wasn’t talking about a cut to 39%, but something in the 70s.
Top taxes for 1918 to 1921 averaged in the mid 70s (paying for WW1).
From 1936 to 1939 were 79% (ending the depression).
From 1941 to 1963 ranged from 81.1% to 92%,
a total of 23 years (included WW2 and Korean War).
From 1964 to 1980 averaged in the lower 70s (Vietnam War).
From 1987 to present rates bounced around from 28% to 39.6% (and Bush2 left paying for his wars to the future generations). On the other hand Bush1 realized that 28% wasn’t cutting it, raised taxes slightly and lost votes.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates

You all are absolutely right, this is a giveaway to the big corporations. We can get rid of the health mandate, but how will emergency room costs be recouped, from us? Social Security is likely to take a hit. If you think it is unfair to tax local and state taxes twice, how about SS? In 1983 Rs and Ds agreed to tax SS on 50% of income over $25,000 for singles and $32,000 for couples. This was based on income we had already earned and paid taxes on. Then Clinton increased the rate to 85% for income over the $25k and $32k deductions. Inflation has doubled in those years, but have they increased those deductions according to inflation. He## no, we moderate income retired people are supporting the big earners and corporations on money we were already taxed. These exemptions should now be in the $50ks and $70ks. as a widow for a decade I can’t even afford to marry the nice man I am now with. As two singles we have $50,000 exemption total on our single tax forms, but if we got married we could only deduct $32,000. [$50,000 - $32,000 = $18,000 x 25% = $4,500, which is more than the increase in the Personal Deduction will give the 2 of us.] Thanks for pushing us into living in sin you sneaky tax law promoters. In fact if the uniparty would just stick to the agreement they made in 1983 that FICA be deducted from the 90% level of all earnings in a given year we would not be worrying about SS disappearing in a few years. The geniuses who devised this compromise arranged that the “tax max” would increase according to inflation. But guess what happened, wages of higher level earners were jumping 10% to 20% after 1983, so the total earning being deducted from are down around 82% instead of the agreed 90%. Once more the richest win while we eat dirt. This is the same scam that happened with the Alternative Minimum Tax—failure to use a true index figure or figures.

This is also happening in big cities. There is concern that the high housing cost states like CA, NY, and NJ will vote against this tax plan. In one medium city which is politically controlled by big developers the property tax has increased by at least 10% each year except if you are living in the house. This has driven rentals sky high, so police, firemen, teachers, hospital/restaurant/hotel workers have to live way out in the suburbs, and God help them and us when there is a major storm and they can’t get home or in to work. These taxes should increase according to inflation, and only be adjusted much higher when a property is sold or big renovations are made.

Does anyone know what is happening to the Schedule E or to the Schedule C for small business people?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.