Right wingers in congress actually "dodged a bullet" in failing to repeal the ACA without any semblance of decent replacement.
Now, the tax reform initiative that will reward the 1% with 80% of the tax cuts, has a decent chance of passing congress without virtually one vote for democrats.
This is sad, but a strong indication that Trump cultists will finally wake up, not only since they too will not see any huge job increases or raises in wages, but also because the deficit will, once again, skyrocket.....
Sometimes, delusion has to smack some folks squarely in their sorry faces.
Now, the tax reform initiative that will reward the 1% with 80% of the tax cuts, has a decent chance of passing congress
I don't know how relevant what follows is to this discussion, probably not much...but as a part of the one-percent, I'm absolutely going to avail myself of whatever "goodies" come my way in Trump's so-called tax reform legislation. I and my family did the same thing when Reagan cut taxes, which back then, my parents actually garnered over double in tax savings what was the median income at the time. Ethically, that is in terms of an implemented set of tax provisions, that just doesn't seem right, yet by the same token, they weren't going to not take the savings. I know the same will be so for me, and I suspect the same is so for similarly situated others.
Trump's made a lot of to-do about the lowering of marginal tax rates. What's he's said nothing about is how his tax proposal(s) will affect people's effective tax rate.
- Marginal tax rate --> the statutory rate associated with a given income or range thereof
- Effective tax rate --> the rate at which one actually pays taxes. This is the the true tax rate one experiences and it is determined by dividing one's actual tax liability, after having reduced one's gross income by one's allowed deductions, by one's gross income.
Assuming under Trump's tax plan one is eligible for the same deductions that already exist, unless one's effective tax rate equals the marginal rate, one will see no difference in one's effective tax rate; thus one is no better off than before. Accordingly, for most individuals, the merit of Trump's tax plan depends not on what marginal rates he/it stipulates, but rather on what it does to deductions.
One example of how that plays out is Trump's pass-through income proposals. Well, they'd be great for me and other business owners, but of no use to non-business owners. The fact of the matter is that most people are not business owners, so that provision is great for people who businesses. It's also worth noting that business owners are, as a segment of society, generally better off than their non-business owning peers.
From a fairness standpoint, providing, say, a $500 to $2000K tax liability reduction to a middle income person earning a typical income (~$50K - $70K), while at the same time enacting laws that provide $50K - $200K to a one-percenter ($500K+) is tantamount tossing two slices of bread to a beggar and giving the guy at a "white tablecloth" restaurant the rest of the loaf, all of which he likely won't eat.
The inequity of the matter isn't found in evaluating the proportionality of the offering;, it's found in assessing its impact. Wealthy people can and will surely find things to do with the tax reduction money, but most are very unlikely to do anything they weren't otherwise going to do were they not to have the savings. Thus, while they will end up with more money to their name, that's all it will be in terms of what it'll do to their lifestyles. I mean really. It's not as though people in that income range don't already have "fancy" trips, trinkets and geegaws. When one already buys whatever one wants when one wants it, having more money in one's pocket as a result of tax savings isn't going to alter that behavior nor is it going to increase one's consumption.
Even looking at the matter from a "supply sider's" standpoint, the reality is that even if one could assume the savings would be directed back into some sort of productive endeavor that will produce jobs for "average" wage earners, the fact of our times is that the bulk of that money will be directed not to labor but to capital, and that's not going to produce many jobs at all. Furthermore, even if most of the money saved were invested in labor intensive industries -- fast food, retail, and others -- the jobs produced aren't particularly good paying and there's nothing suggesting that we need more people to do those jobs.
"Best" way to defeat GOP'ers in congress=Pass the tax reform
Considering the nature of our economy, the global economy and where both are headed, I have to agree with you. That said, I suspect Trumpkins will continue to be bamboozled by the admittedly good-sounding marketing BS Trump will deliver regarding the merits of his tax proposals while at the same time making no effort whatsoever to develop a comprehensive understanding of the full impact of those proposals.