The Sunset Argument about individuals losing their tax cuts

[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.

Fallacy of false premise and false conclusion.

What are you blabbering about nitwit here have one of these

 

[asaratis]

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.

Many people are still stupid enough to think that corporations actually pay taxes. Corporations cover the costs of doing business, including all associated taxes, in their pricing of goods and services. Their CONSUMERS pay the taxes for them.

Those dumb liberals that claimed corporations would simply pay their CEOs more, or distribute their gains from this tax reduction to their stockholders must be shitting their pants as today's news includes AT&T's statement that some 200,000 EMPLOYEES will get a $1,000.00 bonus and that they will invest another $1 BILLION dollars in the USA. Other corporations are making similar claims as a result of the tax bill's passing.

Frantic Hillary Wants Donations to Stop Trump Tax Cuts, Booming Businesses

AT&T plans to give a special $1,000 bonus to more than 200,000 employees.

“If the President signs the bill before Christmas, employees will receive the bonus over the holidays,” the company said in a statement.

Fifth Third and AT&T are paying employees special bonuses after getting tax cuts under the Republican tax plan.

Wells Fargo said Wednesday that it would boost minimum wages for employees to $15 an hour, following Fifth Third’s similar announcement.

Comcast announced Wednesday that it would award one-time $1,000 bonuses to more than 100,000 employees, which would include frontline and non-executive employees.

Wells Fargo and Boeing, also announced that they would pass along tax savings to their workers.

This is all because of the tax cuts.

 

[Mike473]

No tax cuts are permanent. Are the Dems saying no future Congress will ever change the tax code?

I believe that I will save a few thousand dollars per year. Should I turn down all that cash because I might not continue to get the same rate past 2025? Half a loaf is better than none. And, I am betting most people will feel the same once the money is firmly put in their hands. We will deal with 2025 when we get there. There are no certainties in life but death and taxes. I will take my tax cut while I can get it.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

Many people are still stupid enough to think that corporations actually pay taxes. Corporations cover the costs of doing business, including all associated taxes, in their pricing of goods and services. Their CONSUMERS pay the taxes for them.

Those dumb liberals that claimed corporations would simply pay their CEOs more, or distribute their gains from this tax reduction to their stockholders must be shitting their pants as today's news includes AT&T's statement that some 200,000 EMPLOYEES will get a $1,000.00 bonus and that they will invest another $1 BILLION dollars in the USA. Other corporations are making similar claims as a result of the tax bill's passing.

Frantic Hillary Wants Donations to Stop Trump Tax Cuts, Booming Businesses

AT&T plans to give a special $1,000 bonus to more than 200,000 employees.

“If the President signs the bill before Christmas, employees will receive the bonus over the holidays,” the company said in a statement.

Fifth Third and AT&T are paying employees special bonuses after getting tax cuts under the Republican tax plan.

Wells Fargo said Wednesday that it would boost minimum wages for employees to $15 an hour, following Fifth Third’s similar announcement.

Comcast announced Wednesday that it would award one-time $1,000 bonuses to more than 100,000 employees, which would include frontline and non-executive employees.

Wells Fargo and Boeing, also announced that they would pass along tax savings to their workers.

This is all because of the tax cuts.

wow they hate it when people take their money back from the govt......the left thinks its the govt that rules the people.....they have no understanding of the purpose of our govt system at all.

 

[Spare_change]

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?

The answer has been given 114 times ... it had nothing to do with changing rates down the road.

Personal tax rate changes are always put in with a sunset clause. This is done because, to make it permanent, would require a 60/40 vote ... and no party is ever going to get that.

The same thing will happen with these that happened with the Bush tax cuts .... when the time comes to review them, they will be renewed. No president is going to go on record wanting to raise taxes on the middle class.

This whole discussion is nothing more than deflection by the Democrats.

 

[Spare_change]

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?

You see the Anwar project as lard??? Seriously??

I'm guessing you don't know what the Anwar project is, or you wouldn't have said something that stupid.

 

[Spare_change]

3% of $10M = $300K (for the top)

3% of $50K = $1500 (one months rent)

I think I'm becoming a Leftist?
Did "they"really need an additional $300K? While babies freeze to death in NorCal?
It ain't the meat, its the motion.

PLEASE tell me that isn't how you figured out it was a tax cut for the rich????

Because one gets back more money, that makes it a tax cut for the rich???

And, we wonder how this country got so fucked up .....

 

[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.

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

Take another look --- Manchin rallied some on-the-fence Democrats to vote against the bill. He talked a good game, but never came to play.

Democrats once seen as potential yes votes on tax cuts appear to walk away

 

[theHawk]

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!

Of course they will vote against renewing it, just like how they ALL voted against the bill in the first place. You honestly think in seven years Dems won’t still be lying their asses off claiming they are only tax cuts for the rich?

 

[Slade3200]

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?

You see the Anwar project as lard??? Seriously??

I'm guessing you don't know what the Anwar project is, or you wouldn't have said something that stupid.

Of course it is pork. What does requiring the federal government to sell land leases in Alaska so energy companies can drill for oil have to do with taxes? #PorkCity

 

[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

Take another look --- Manchin rallied some on-the-fence Democrats to vote against the bill. He talked a good game, but never came to play.

Democrats once seen as potential yes votes on tax cuts appear to walk away

Your right but he did that after meeting with Trump and being told he would have a seat at the table and then he worked up pages of ideas and got shut out by the republicans. After that he was a definite no, all the Dems were, the Reps were not interested in working with them it was a conscious choice

 

[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!

Of course they will vote against renewing it, just like how they ALL voted against the bill in the first place. You honestly think in seven years Dems won’t still be lying their asses off claiming they are only tax cuts for the rich?

Did they vote against renewing the bush tax cuts in 2010 and 2012? Do you think before you speak?

 

[theHawk]

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!

Of course they will vote against renewing it, just like how they ALL voted against the bill in the first place. You honestly think in seven years Dems won’t still be lying their asses off claiming they are only tax cuts for the rich?

Did they vote against renewing the bush tax cuts in 2010 and 2012? Do you think before you speak?

They only voted for it because they were in power. Dems regret that vote, they ended up committing political suicide anyway when they passed HusseinCare. The new Regressive Left Party is all about damaging the US, no matter the cost to their own political careers.

 

[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!

Of course they will vote against renewing it, just like how they ALL voted against the bill in the first place. You honestly think in seven years Dems won’t still be lying their asses off claiming they are only tax cuts for the rich?

Did they vote against renewing the bush tax cuts in 2010 and 2012? Do you think before you speak?

They only voted for it because they were in power. Dems regret that vote, they ended up committing political suicide anyway when they passed HusseinCare. The new Regressive Left Party is all about damaging the US, no matter the cost to their own political careers.

Yeah nice try, you’ve shown zero credibility to speak to what Dems think so don’t even try. And what does being in power have to do with it? if anything it completely negates your argument. They had a supermajority and the power to do whatever they wanted. If they wanted to get rid of the tax cuts and raise taxes like you claim they do, then they would have done that in 2010 and 2012. They didn’t. You’re done.

 

[Aldo Raine]

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

Thank you, I honestly didn't know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ACA is still here and not going away, the Hawk: just the way it is.

 

[leftwinger]

3% of $10M = $300K (for thj mmp)

3% of $50K = $1500 (one months rent)

I think I'm becoming a Leftist?
Did "they"really need an additional $300K? While babies freeze to death in NorCal?
It ain't the meat, its the motion.

PLEASE tell me that isn't how you figured out it was a tax cut for the rich????

Because one gets back more money, that makes it a tax cut for the rich???

And, we wonder how this country got so fucked up .....

I thought other bottom brackets could be lowered (10% instead of 12%, corp 20% vs. 21% etc.). High income could go to 40% for all I care, no reduction IMVHO. the "rich" needed SALT help? bullhockey.

Edit: and I like clean numbers, 5, 10, 25, 40 etc. Things are better but still so complicated? 7 brackets? Why so many pages of Tax Code still? what is in there? What is that Wall st. Interest pass thru McConnell and others refused to eliminate? Trump had promised?

I understand much of it. A 5% flat tax below $50K, 15% above? Great. Sign me up.

No funny business would be great. But they built up pensions and 30 years of debt, $10T just newly added.

 

[task0778]

ACA is still here and not going away, the Hawk: just the way it is.

Not to start a fight Jake, but if the young and healthy people are not forced to buy health insurance to avoid the tax penalty then they ain't going to buy the insurance at all, just like always. Which means the only people left under ObamaCare will be those who are subsidized or pay out more in claims than they pay in. IOW, it'll become even more unsustainable than it already has become. So how do you figure the ACA is not going away?

 

[initforme]

Tax cuts are good. My question is why are the middle class tax cuts not DOUBLE of what they are in the bill? Make the cuts really good. The bigger the cuts middle class gets the better for the nation. Yet they are minimal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ACA is still here and not going away, the Hawk: just the way it is.

Not to start a fight Jake, but if the young and healthy people are not forced to buy health insurance to avoid the tax penalty then they ain't going to buy the insurance at all, just like always. Which means the only people left under ObamaCare will be those who are subsidized or pay out more in claims than they pay in. IOW, it'll become even more unsustainable than it already has become. So how do you figure the ACA is not going away?

No need to quarrel. The law means that catastrophic insurance will come back. That means that those who use it will privatize the profit for themselves but socialize the long-term risk on the entire population. Eventually, when the Dems come back, they will change the Senate rules for a 50 vote + VP and ram home a single payer system, incorporating ACA, Medicaid, and Medicare. Inevitable.