[SkyPilot]

In CA, NY, NJ and IL there are 34 Republican House members. None will vote for this bill as it would be suicide for them. Their core constituency gets hammered.

They last framework bill passed 216-212. In that one, all of the California Republicans voted for the Senate version of the budge. I am not sure they will have them this time. While the latest tax bill does allow for some property tax deduction relief, that primarily helps states like NY and NJ. However, taxpayer in CA pay more in local and state taxes in other areas, because of Proposition 13. Therefore, I am not certain Paul Ryan will have the CA House GOP votes.

As we have been discussing for weeks, this bill is a disaster for millions of taxpayers. Because they wanted it to be "revenue neutral" - they chose to pick winners and losers. The clear winners are the corporations. The losers will be millions of middle class families, many who will have their Federal taxes raised under this bill.

Yes, I know that cutting taxes on corporations will lead to growth, and generate more revenue. That isn't the point. The GOP chose to raise taxes on millions of other Americans in order to "pay for" the cuts to corporations. Anyone who disputes that basic fact is dishonest or completely ignorant of the facts.

[JayGalt]

“The GOP chose to raise taxes on millions of other Americans in order to “pay for” the cuts to corporations.”

It is amazing to me that you are willing to be so dogmatic when we don’t yet have brackets. It’s like claiming a horse won a race before the race is run.

[Mariner]

“They last framework bill passed 216-212. “

That was a BUDGET FRAMEWORK and a decent bill considering it’s the first budget in over 10 years.

All it did was enable a change to the tax structure and it was necessary, procedurally, to enable the Senate to use reconciliation to pay the tax bill.

Oh, and they will throw that budget out the window as soon as they are done with the tax bill.

[Okeydoker]

You are totally correct. This is a ryan chamber of commerce bill tomraiae individual taxes to pay for their donors tax cut. Brady is just a ryan dirtbag.

[Mariner]

“Anyone who disputes that basic fact is dishonest or completely ignorant of the facts. “

Absolutely true and I’m prepared to argue that fact with anyone that has the stamina for it.

[wiseprince]

The real problem is no one wants cuts to the EPA, DOD, of the State Department. Reasonable cuts can pay for tax reform many times over.

[Woodman]

Ny is a low property tax state but high income tax. This will kill New York but help in New Jersey.

[SJackson]

Yes, I know that cutting taxes on corporations will lead to growth, and generate more revenue. That isn't the point. The GOP chose to raise taxes on millions of other Americans in order to "pay for" the cuts to corporations.

You know? The driver of the economy is the consumer. As you note there are many losers in this plan, mostly upper middle class. That's where spending at the margins comes from. There will be some boost from lower income households who will benefit. Then there's the, imo, absurd distinction between pass through entities, which the administration calls "small business", and individuals who can't get in on the "samll business" tax break. Perhaps some stimulus. But if you look at Kansas which tried this four years ago, no jump in employment or revenue. A lot of tax avoidance. You'll see this in spades.

[Magnum44]

As we have been discussing for weeks, this bill is a disaster for millions of taxpayers. Because they wanted it to be "revenue neutral" - they chose to pick winners and losers. The clear winners are the corporations. The losers will be millions of middle class families, many who will have their Federal taxes raised under this bill.

I have a different view, though it requires being altruistic to the betterment of the nation, not of self.

Certain states (CA and NY for example) have run amok with their own tax and spend policies, and have abused the federal deduction as an excuse for state spending irresponsibility. This is what is meant when you see the claim that the states with lower income taxes are "subsidizing" states with higher income taxes. Coincidently, it is mostly red states subsidizing blue states.

Removing the federal deduction for state income taxes unmasks this bad state behavior. It brings federalism to the front and lets people once again decide if they want to live in one state or move to a better state.

I applaud this, even though I currently live in CA (a situation I am hoping to change soon) and will lose this deduction. I am hoping the doubling of the standard deduction will get me close to the same tax liability as I had previously.

[lastchance]

Thanks for a good summing up.

[ConservativeMind]

Knowing nearly half of the country pays no income tax, do you support more of those people paying tax and having benefits reduced?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

That's the problem with a government that assumes that our money is actually THEIR money; they must find a way to "pay" for tax relief. As opposed to my own idea of a tax plan, where I don't give a schnitt about how to "pay" for it. I would instead rely on the (Ron/Rand) Paul budget on the spending side: a $500 billion spending cut in the first year, then a balanced budget after 4 more years.

Thanks, Paul RINO. Idiot.

[palmer]

The GOP chose to raise taxes on millions of other Americans in order to "pay for" the cuts to corporations.

As they should. The deduction for state and local taxes mainly enables the blue states to drag down the US economy with higher taxes. The deductions for large amounts of mortgage interest just changes consumption patterns, picking winners and losers.