The Sunset Argument about individuals losing their tax cuts

[Spare_change]

Then everybody could have voted to make them permanent.

No, they couldn't .... making them permanent would have forced the Tax Cut bill into the 60-40 voting process in the Senate .... guaranteed to ensure the bill would not pass.

It is the failure of the Democrat party to consider their constituency that forced the Sunset clause to be invoked.

Nice try, though.

 

[BluesLegend]

I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?

The logic behind their opposition to the tax plan (which I actually agree isn't a very good plan), is that it benefits the corporations more than the middle class. Money from the poor to the rich. The Corporate tax cuts being permanent and the individual tax cuts being temporary feeds that narrative... I just don't think it is a strong argument.

Its a stupid argument, the middle class has trillions of dollars invested in what...yes corporations. A tax cut that benefits corporations therefore benefits the middle class.

 

[Spare_change]

But you do not have to vote against renewal, you just do not have to vote at all and the cuts are gone. That way nobody has to say they voted against them. These folks in congress are dirtier than a pig in the summer, but they are not totally stupid. They always give themselves an out.

That's absolute nonsense.

Do you seriously believe no one is going to vote to extend them? Really?

Quit making shit up.

 

[OKTexas]

Then everybody could have voted to make them permanent.

The obstructionist commiecrats refused to do so, republicans couldn't do it by themselves under reconciliation because of senate rules.


.

 

[Slade3200]

I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?

The logic behind their opposition to the tax plan (which I actually agree isn't a very good plan), is that it benefits the corporations more than the middle class. Money from the poor to the rich. The Corporate tax cuts being permanent and the individual tax cuts being temporary feeds that narrative... I just don't think it is a strong argument.

Its a stupid argument, the middle class has trillions of dollars invested in what...yes corporations. A tax cut that benefits corporations therefore benefits the middle class.

The Right has been saying that through Obama’s disasterous economy middle class wages have been stagnant and growth has been slow, yet corporations and the top earners have made more money than ever. If that’s true and the rich only got richer under obama then why didn’t that trickle down and benefit the middle class under your logic? If it didn’t work then why is it going to work now?

 

[Slade3200]

Then everybody could have voted to make them permanent.

The obstructionist commiecrats refused to do so, republicans couldn't do it by themselves under reconciliation because of senate rules.


.

That’s not true, there were plenty of Dems that tried to work with the republicans on this bill and they got frozen out. This could have been a bipartisan bill but it probably wouldn’t have gotten done by years end and it wouldn’t have included all the Republican pork. So they did it their way and continued the districtive practice of majority rules law making. It’s not how congress was designed to function

 

[BluesLegend]

I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?

The logic behind their opposition to the tax plan (which I actually agree isn't a very good plan), is that it benefits the corporations more than the middle class. Money from the poor to the rich. The Corporate tax cuts being permanent and the individual tax cuts being temporary feeds that narrative... I just don't think it is a strong argument.

Its a stupid argument, the middle class has trillions of dollars invested in what...yes corporations. A tax cut that benefits corporations therefore benefits the middle class.

The Right has been saying that through Obama’s disasterous economy middle class wages have been stagnant and growth has been slow, yet corporations and the top earners have made more money than ever. If that’s true and the rich only got richer under obama then why didn’t that trickle down and benefit the middle class under your logic? If it didn’t work then why is it going to work now?

The middle class has trillions of dollars invested in corporations just admit it for Christ sake. Why is that so hard? There is no trickle down, the middle class are co-owners of the business, pay the same price for the stock, receive the same dividends. Its time YOU PEOPLE give up your attempted division of the American people.

 

[task0778]

I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?

The logic behind their opposition to the tax plan (which I actually agree isn't a very good plan), is that it benefits the corporations more than the middle class. Money from the poor to the rich. The Corporate tax cuts being permanent and the individual tax cuts being temporary feeds that narrative... I just don't think it is a strong argument.

I wouldn't say it's the greatest tax plan either, but to say that it takes money from the poor to the rich is nonsense. The poor aren't paying any taxes to begin with, and I believe this new tax plan increases the number of non-payers. As for the corp tax cuts being permanent, the next Congress and President can change that PDQ if they have the votes.
And so far as I know there is or was no other country in the world with a higher corp tax rate than the US, which is significant factor int he decision for many to shift their ops offshore enough to keep them here and even bring back some who have left. Yes, it helps the rich but it also helps so many of us in the middle class who have savings invested in 401ks. It is dumbshit stupid to shoot ourselves in the foot by adopting policies that restrict economic growth just because some rich guys are going to get richer. As long as the rest of us get richer too and more jobs get created OR SAVED (loved that one when the Dems came up with it), let's go for it.

I think if there was a bipartisan approach the corporate rate would have gone to 25%, which is where obama wanted it, and that extra 4% could have gone to the middle class. There is also a lot of right wing pork in this bill like repealing the Obamacare mandate and lifting environment regulations that they snuck in, which is probably why they locked out the Dems.

The Dems weren't going to support a GOP tax cut bill anyway, no matter what was in it. Not as long as the top rate was going to get cut. Would the Dems have supported the bill if the top rate was not lowered? I don't think so, their base won't let them reduce the taxes to big corps or the rich guys, either one. The whole point of the cut in corp tax rates was to make the US more competitive internationally, businesses won't leave here in the first place if it doesn't save them money.

And I don't think that 4% difference in the corp rate would have amount to more than a few bucks to the middle class, but maybe I'm wrong on that. As for the ObamaCare mandate and the environmental reg stuff, as long as the Dems won't support it anyway then you might as well throw in whatever you can to get political points for your side in the next election. That way the next prez can't just get rid of it with an EO.

 

[BluesLegend]

I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?

The logic behind their opposition to the tax plan (which I actually agree isn't a very good plan), is that it benefits the corporations more than the middle class. Money from the poor to the rich. The Corporate tax cuts being permanent and the individual tax cuts being temporary feeds that narrative... I just don't think it is a strong argument.

I wouldn't say it's the greatest tax plan either, but to say that it takes money from the poor to the rich is nonsense. The poor aren't paying any taxes to begin with, and I believe this new tax plan increases the number of non-payers. As for the corp tax cuts being permanent, the next Congress and President can change that PDQ if they have the votes.
And so far as I know there is or was no other country in the world with a higher corp tax rate than the US, which is significant factor int he decision for many to shift their ops offshore enough to keep them here and even bring back some who have left. Yes, it helps the rich but it also helps so many of us in the middle class who have savings invested in 401ks. It is dumbshit stupid to shoot ourselves in the foot by adopting policies that restrict economic growth just because some rich guys are going to get richer. As long as the rest of us get richer too and more jobs get created OR SAVED (loved that one when the Dems came up with it), let's go for it.

I think if there was a bipartisan approach the corporate rate would have gone to 25%, which is where obama wanted it, and that extra 4% could have gone to the middle class. There is also a lot of right wing pork in this bill like repealing the Obamacare mandate and lifting environment regulations that they snuck in, which is probably why they locked out the Dems.

The Dems weren't going to support a GOP tax cut bill anyway, no matter what was in it. Not as long as the top rate was going to get cut. Would the Dems have supported the bill if the top rate was not lowered? I don't think so, their base won't let them reduce the taxes to big corps or the rich guys, either one. The whole point of the cut in corp tax rates was to make the US more competitive internationally, businesses won't leave here in the first place if it doesn't save them money.

And I don't think that 4% difference in the corp rate would have amount to more than a few bucks to the middle class, but maybe I'm wrong on that. As for the ObamaCare mandate and the environmental reg stuff, as long as the Dems won't support it anyway then you might as well throw in whatever you can to get political points for your side in the next election. That way the next prez can't just get rid of it with an EO.

The time for token half measures has passed, Trump's go big or go home approach is exactly what was needed.

 

[task0778]

Then everybody could have voted to make them permanent.

The obstructionist commiecrats refused to do so, republicans couldn't do it by themselves under reconciliation because of senate rules.


.

That’s not true, there were plenty of Dems that tried to work with the republicans on this bill and they got frozen out. This could have been a bipartisan bill but it probably wouldn’t have gotten done by years end and it wouldn’t have included all the Republican pork. So they did it their way and continued the districtive practice of majority rules law making. It’s not how congress was designed to function

I really don't think the Dems ever tried to work with the GOP on this bill in an honest fashion. There was no chance this bill was ever going to be bipartisan, and BTW I don't think the Dems ever tried to work with the Repubs in an honest fashion with the ACA when they had the majority. Or on anything else either. All they tried to do was peel one or two vulnerable Repubs away so they could call their bill a bipartisan effort. No doubt the same thing that the GOP tried this time. Partisanship rules the day in DC, and I don'e see that changing anytime soon, but let's not pretend one side has the higher moral ground here.

 

[Slade3200]

I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?

The logic behind their opposition to the tax plan (which I actually agree isn't a very good plan), is that it benefits the corporations more than the middle class. Money from the poor to the rich. The Corporate tax cuts being permanent and the individual tax cuts being temporary feeds that narrative... I just don't think it is a strong argument.

I wouldn't say it's the greatest tax plan either, but to say that it takes money from the poor to the rich is nonsense. The poor aren't paying any taxes to begin with, and I believe this new tax plan increases the number of non-payers. As for the corp tax cuts being permanent, the next Congress and President can change that PDQ if they have the votes.
And so far as I know there is or was no other country in the world with a higher corp tax rate than the US, which is significant factor int he decision for many to shift their ops offshore enough to keep them here and even bring back some who have left. Yes, it helps the rich but it also helps so many of us in the middle class who have savings invested in 401ks. It is dumbshit stupid to shoot ourselves in the foot by adopting policies that restrict economic growth just because some rich guys are going to get richer. As long as the rest of us get richer too and more jobs get created OR SAVED (loved that one when the Dems came up with it), let's go for it.

I think if there was a bipartisan approach the corporate rate would have gone to 25%, which is where obama wanted it, and that extra 4% could have gone to the middle class. There is also a lot of right wing pork in this bill like repealing the Obamacare mandate and lifting environment regulations that they snuck in, which is probably why they locked out the Dems.

The Dems weren't going to support a GOP tax cut bill anyway, no matter what was in it. Not as long as the top rate was going to get cut. Would the Dems have supported the bill if the top rate was not lowered? I don't think so, their base won't let them reduce the taxes to big corps or the rich guys, either one. The whole point of the cut in corp tax rates was to make the US more competitive internationally, businesses won't leave here in the first place if it doesn't save them money.

And I don't think that 4% difference in the corp rate would have amount to more than a few bucks to the middle class, but maybe I'm wrong on that. As for the ObamaCare mandate and the environmental reg stuff, as long as the Dems won't support it anyway then you might as well throw in whatever you can to get political points for your side in the next election. That way the next prez can't just get rid of it with an EO.

See that attitude, throw in whatever pork you can before Dems get back control. That’s the BS that is corruption Washington and stalling legislation.

Senator Manchin had 4 points that he wanted worked in and he thought he could have brought a dozen dem votes with him. He was ignored

 

[OKTexas]

Then everybody could have voted to make them permanent.

The obstructionist commiecrats refused to do so, republicans couldn't do it by themselves under reconciliation because of senate rules.


.

That’s not true, there were plenty of Dems that tried to work with the republicans on this bill and they got frozen out. This could have been a bipartisan bill but it probably wouldn’t have gotten done by years end and it wouldn’t have included all the Republican pork. So they did it their way and continued the districtive practice of majority rules law making. It’s not how congress was designed to function

The commiecrats wouldn't support ending the mandate, which allowed more tax cuts, or opening ANWR which also enhances revenue. What pork are you referring to.

BTW congress was designed to work with a majority vote, congresscritters created the rules, not the founders.


.

 

[Spare_change]

Then everybody could have voted to make them permanent.

The obstructionist commiecrats refused to do so, republicans couldn't do it by themselves under reconciliation because of senate rules.


.

That’s not true, there were plenty of Dems that tried to work with the republicans on this bill and they got frozen out. This could have been a bipartisan bill but it probably wouldn’t have gotten done by years end and it wouldn’t have included all the Republican pork. So they did it their way and continued the districtive practice of majority rules law making. It’s not how congress was designed to function

Sorry ---- there were none.

There were some who paid lip service to it ... but none who were sincerely interested in tax cuts.

 

[leftwinger]

If it does not work "we" are in trouble. The last 8 years method does not work. We may find out this country is too far gone. 30 year dumb-down takes its toll. RW will say I told ya so.....

I don't like 2.9% last minute upper bracket cut. Seems?....well I'm not in that bracket.

Why did they need to slip that in? They had corporate rate at 20%

Anwar was to get the AK vote, Murcowsky. More lard. Why do you have to bribe?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?

Then, by that logic, the corporate tax cut should have been temporary as well.

Not really, because businesses forecast well out into the future to base their current decisions for expansions and so do entrepeneurs and investors to do startups. If the corp tax rate is temporary it kinda puts a damper on the enthusiasm to get a little froggy. If you want to encourage growth you can't be half-assed about it.

If you are correct in your assessment, and that is problematic, then the personal cuts should have been made permanent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?

The logic behind their opposition to the tax plan (which I actually agree isn't a very good plan), is that it benefits the corporations more than the middle class. Money from the poor to the rich. The Corporate tax cuts being permanent and the individual tax cuts being temporary feeds that narrative... I just don't think it is a strong argument.

We will see how well that argument is spun by the Dems.

So your argument is going to be what? Let the individual tax rates expire so you can then get the corporate rates back up? Is that your plan?

That's what will happen if the voters don't believe they are on a level playing field with business.

 

[Slade3200]

Then everybody could have voted to make them permanent.

The obstructionist commiecrats refused to do so, republicans couldn't do it by themselves under reconciliation because of senate rules.


.

That’s not true, there were plenty of Dems that tried to work with the republicans on this bill and they got frozen out. This could have been a bipartisan bill but it probably wouldn’t have gotten done by years end and it wouldn’t have included all the Republican pork. So they did it their way and continued the districtive practice of majority rules law making. It’s not how congress was designed to function

The commiecrats wouldn't support ending the mandate, which allowed more tax cuts, or opening ANWR which also enhances revenue. What pork are you referring to.

BTW congress was designed to work with a majority vote, congresscritters created the rules, not the founders.
.

The senate is supposed to work with a 60-40 vote forcing both parties to work together.

And you just named two of the biggest pieces of pork that got stuffed in this bill. I know you love it because it supports your agenda but just imagine the backlash when the Dems do the same thing back to you. It’s not a healthy way to legislate and conduct business

 

[Slade3200]

Then everybody could have voted to make them permanent.

The obstructionist commiecrats refused to do so, republicans couldn't do it by themselves under reconciliation because of senate rules.


.

That’s not true, there were plenty of Dems that tried to work with the republicans on this bill and they got frozen out. This could have been a bipartisan bill but it probably wouldn’t have gotten done by years end and it wouldn’t have included all the Republican pork. So they did it their way and continued the districtive practice of majority rules law making. It’s not how congress was designed to function

Sorry ---- there were none.

There were some who paid lip service to it ... but none who were sincerely interested in tax cuts.

Joe Manchin was one and claimed he could bring a dozen more

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Left has got to stop using the Sunset argument to attack the new Tax bill. There are plenty of areas to attack regarding the bill but this one is a losing argument. I hear democratic congressmen using this talking point in every interview and all it takes is asking them the question, "Would you vote to repeal the individual tax cuts in 7 years?" Of course they aren't going to say yes. We know that Republicans aren't going to repeal them and I seriously doubt that dems would either. It would be political suicide.

For those of you who don't know what the sunset argument is... It is the talking point that the Corporate cuts are permanent and the individual tax cuts are temporary, up for a renewal vote after 7 years. Dems are playing the scenario that after 7 years, if the tax cuts aren't renewed by congress, then everybody's taxes will go up. I'm saying right now that is not realistic, nobody is not going to vote to renew, it is a losing argument. Move on to the next one!

I'm asking the question then, why didn't they make them permanent as well?

Because they took the partisan approach and passed the bill using reconciliation meaning they only needed majority votes to pass it. To do this they had to keep the deficit forecast under 1.5 trillion. Because of this they couldn’t make the individual cuts perminant as it would have pushed them over budget

Tough. The corporate tax % could be adjusted upwards until it reached the level for deficit forecast to make it legal.

 

[Slade3200]

The Left has got to stop using the Sunset argument to attack the new Tax bill. There are plenty of areas to attack regarding the bill but this one is a losing argument. I hear democratic congressmen using this talking point in every interview and all it takes is asking them the question, "Would you vote to repeal the individual tax cuts in 7 years?" Of course they aren't going to say yes. We know that Republicans aren't going to repeal them and I seriously doubt that dems would either. It would be political suicide.

For those of you who don't know what the sunset argument is... It is the talking point that the Corporate cuts are permanent and the individual tax cuts are temporary, up for a renewal vote after 7 years. Dems are playing the scenario that after 7 years, if the tax cuts aren't renewed by congress, then everybody's taxes will go up. I'm saying right now that is not realistic, nobody is not going to vote to renew, it is a losing argument. Move on to the next one!

I'm asking the question then, why didn't they make them permanent as well?

Because they took the partisan approach and passed the bill using reconciliation meaning they only needed majority votes to pass it. To do this they had to keep the deficit forecast under 1.5 trillion. Because of this they couldn’t make the individual cuts perminant as it would have pushed them over budget

Tough. The corporate tax % could be adjusted upwards until it reached the level for deficit forecast to make it legal.

Yeah there are a lot of things they could and should have done differently, I just don’t think the sunset in the individual tax cuts is a strong argument and it seems to be one of the primary talking points for critisizers. I don’t think it’s effective, they should focus on other elements