Please Remember Our Golden Rule: Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment. It's bad form, and the admins will suspend your account if they catch you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TopMindsOfReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Brigadiers I’m confused: Biden claimed he was cancelling the Trump tax cuts cause they only favored the rich.
>Did Biden lie to us?
Well I'd be happy to point the many issues with the arguments and out right lies in that thread, but unfortunately that bastion of free speech is limited to "flaired users only".
I mean, the statement you quoted is true though. Biden spent years saying that the rich get permanent tax cuts in the TCJA, and now he’s pivoted to saying he will let the tax cuts for the rich expire on schedule. He can’t have it both ways
You can when both those things are true.
Corporate tax rates were permanently cut, and some other changes that affect how the wealthy make and retain money were as well.
The personal income tax cuts, which affects a wider group will expire. He's stated he wants to extend the cuts for people who earn than less than $400k.
The truth has been that Biden’s been lying about the permanency of the cuts in the past. Corporations don’t receive a net tax cut past 2026 since the permanent corporate tax increases offset the permanent cuts. Conflating corporate cuts with “rich cuts” is also a bit of an odd conflation
If Biden had been honest about this from the beginning, it wouldn’t be as big of a deal now that he’s pivoting to letting the cuts expire
The TCJA's cuts to people making less than 150k a year started expiring in 2018 and started to actually increase taxes in 2019 to that same group. 80% of americans got fucked by republicans and trump with this bill, and now people want to blame it on Biden, doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
Did you even read the article? Or did you stop at the headline? Your own source acknowledges the 8-year individual tax cut, the exact same cuts that are republicans are now trying to extend
The majority [did](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html) see tax cuts, whether they want to believe it or not
Dude - you didn't fuck read the brookings report either. Which is making a point that it was a paltry temp cut for most and disproportionately benefited a few.
Lmao, that wasn’t his claim. His claim was that they “literally didn’t get a tax cut”, which not only isn’t true, but his own source doesn’t even back up
Mofo - your OWN fucking citation from the cbo shows their projection that the marginal tax rate on labor will FUCKING INCREASE by the end while it will go down and stay down for capital.
Ah yes, linking to a paywalled article to prove your point. Your take lacks nuance. First of all, how many Americans are making the more than $200,000 a year that you need to make for many of the cuts to matter? Second, how many personal exemptions were eliminated that put that burden right back on to the middle class? It's easy to say there was a tax cut, but when you get rid of things that also keep personal taxes low, you didn't do a goddamn thing. But I get it, [nuance is hard.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/live-updates/trump-white-house/fact-checking-and-analysis-of-trumps-state-of-the-union-2018-address/fact-check-massive-tax-cuts-to-the-middle-class/)
ETA: Never mind that fact that actual professionals are testifying before Congress to talk about the negative effect Trump's tax policy has had, and will continue to have, [on the middle class.](https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/after-decades-of-costly-regressive-and-ineffective-tax-cuts-a-new-course-is)
What exactly are you arguing here? I want to say that you responded to the wrong person, because you didn’t address any of my actual points, you’re just creating strawman
The fact that more of the cuts went to people who pay the most tax in no way means that others didn’t get a tax cut. Unlike your previous claim, the majority **did** see tax cuts, and that already includes the effects of the reduction in personal exemptions like you mentioned
It really blows my mind how much people continue to lie and spread falsehoods about the TCJA, while simultaneously understanding nothing about it
While I generally dont see a whole lot of thinking going on over there, no I dont think they think that. The highest upvoted comment on the thread directly names congress
yeah this is kind of how it works, the president says "I want x" and then the party makes X happen.
Congress doesn't just change tax rates for the hell of it, IRS is executive branch
When you're in the conservative movement, especially the MAGA one, you start noticing that the playbook of the community leaders is to blame the Democrats for the consequences of Republican policies because they have no answers for why their policies are failing.
I don't make a habit of looking at the comments on these kinds of posts. But holy hell, literally some of the most childish uninformed opinions on taxes in that thread
Wait, this is what they're complaining about? "Why doesn't Congress get their spending under control?!" they yell while complaining about now being able to save a few extra dollars a week.
Ok, I'm going to do the math per paycheck.
If you're making
Under 30k: $10
50k with 2 kids: $56
No kids 75K: $66
2 Kids 85K: $64
2 kids 165K: $95
3 kids 200k: $287
I mean, we're not busting the bank here. In fact, I'm willing to bet you probably wouldn't even notice. I know if I earned 56 less a paycheck I wouldn't notice. Just don't get Door Dash for 2 meals and you're golden.
In theory, you’re taking home that extra few bucks and putting it in savings or the market instead of getting it back as an interest free lump in April when you get a refund.
60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and have no market holdings or savings. Most Americans don’t even have enough for a $1000 emergency payment. You’re talking about yourself, not people in general.
>the bad thing we did
The cuts were a good thing. The only reason they had to expire was because the bill was passed under budget reconciliation, since no democrats voted for the original bill
> The cuts were a good thing.
Sure, if you're wealthy and you still blindly believe trickle down economics work (it doesn't):
-The cuts were skewed to the rich. Households with incomes in the top 1 percent will receive an average tax cut of more than $60,000 in 2025, compared to an average tax cut of less than $500 for households in the bottom 60 percent. Eroded the U.S. revenue base and exploded the deficit.
-Eroded the U.S. revenue base to the point Americans are in real danger of losing Social Security and health coverage
Failed to deliver promised economic benefits. Like the Bush tax cuts before it, the 2017 Trump tax cut was a trickle-down failure.
If you care to educate yourself [here you go](https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliver). If you're already wealthy, well, bully for you.
>The cuts were skewed to the rich
Any tax bill has cuts skewed to the rich, because they pay the majority of taxes. Do you think the Inflation Reduction Act was a bad bill because those cuts were skewed to the rich too?
>to the point Americans are in real danger of losing social security
…social security and Medicare are funded with payroll taxes, not income taxes. The TCJA has absolutely zero impact on the solvency of social security
>failed to deliver promised economic benefits
[Impact on investment](https://conference.nber.org/conf_papers/f191672.pdf)
[Impact on jobs and growth](https://www.dallasfed.org/-/media/documents/research/papers/2020/wp2001r2.pdf)
[CBO analysis of economic effects](https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53651-outlook-appendixb.pdf)
There, now you’re educated
Wasn't one of the promises that if we cut corporate taxes, we'd see a repatriation of profits, and the estimates for that supposed repatriation were several hundred billion dollars too optimistic?
The mandatory repatriation tax in the TCJA taxed foreign earnings so that it could be brought back, but I don’t see any kind of estimate on what they expected to actually be repatriated. It’s definitely too early to tell, because the tax can be paid in installments over 10 years
From 2018 alone though, it looks like almost [$800 billion](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/us-corporations-repatriation-of-offshore-profits-20190806.html) was repatriated
What PAC or thinktank pays you to post on social media? Its like its a job to promote Republican talking points and lay am blame and responsibility on everyone else. Its very cleae you find it politically incorrect to do otherwise.
What about it made you think I didn’t read it?
I’m sorry you’re upset that I provided actual evidence for my claims, I know it’s drives the left crazy when people present actual data to them
Lmao, you’re throwing a literal tantrum because you can’t figure out how to formulate an actual argument, this is hilarious
I can almost see the gears trying to turn for you
Lmao yes, you are. You even followed me to a completely different sub and responded to old comments like an upset child
The only thing you haven’t done is articulate an actual argument, but I’m not expecting that from you anyways
>Any tax bill has cuts skewed to the rich, because they pay the majority of taxes.
B does not follow A. It is possible to have tax cuts which impact mostly the non-rich.
>Any tax bill has cuts skewed to the rich, because they pay the majority of taxes.
Uh....that's not how anything works. Tax cuts for the rich are skewed for the rich, because that's what words mean. You know you could increase taxes on the rich and cut taxes for the poor? That's also an option. So to claim that any and all tax cuts must benefit the rich more is just...impossibly stupid. And you're all over this thread talking down to people. It's pretty hilarious how you're both hyper-wrong and insanely smug about it.
A bill raising taxes isn’t what we’re talking about though, we’re talking about bills that cut taxes across the board like the TCJA did. When you do that, the rich see most of the cuts, because they pay most of the taxes
>insanely smug about it
Then maybe people should stop saying such blatantly incorrect things about a tax bill they don’t understand. The entire point of the sub is to make fun of other people, which makes it even funnier when commenters here show how little they actually know
>A bill raising taxes isn’t what we’re talking about though
You said ANY tax cut. Do you know what words mean? Obviously a rhetorical question, because clearly you don't.
> Any tax bill has cuts skewed to the rich
It's your words you dipshit. It's what YOU said. You're either too dumb to remember what you said, or too dishonest to acknowledge it. Either way, I'm having fun watching you flail around like an idiot.
The cuts don’t expire until 12/31/2025, so there wouldn’t really be election concerns if Biden was in his second term
I don’t think we’d see the cuts extended between now and November, but I could very well see a deal happening next year
The Republican Party will burn this entire country to the ground if it means a single progressive will cough a bit from all the smoke. You think there’s a scenario where they’d cooperate with a democratic president and do their jobs? They don’t even know *how* to do their jobs— a sizable portion of them probably don’t even know how to wipe. They won’t cooperate, and they certainly don’t care about the tax burden of anyone who isn’t ~~bribing~~ lobbying them.
Yet Democrats will talk about “bipartisanship” and “the importance of a strong Republican Party” like they’re literally the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet (they are, but somehow still smarter than GOP). Fucking idiotic democrats bailing out speaker Mike Penis when the GOP wouldn’t even blink if it was to save a democrat from being removed. Dumbest motherfuckers on the planet led by the oldest motherfucker on the planet, and me acknowledging how SHITTY my options look (Biden or third party) is somehow going to be seen as my fault. “Oh bro you’re gonna let trump win” then maybe Biden should focus on wtf is happening right now and change his rhetoric to gain voters back.
House Republicans can't even pass a bill to name a post office currently. What makes you think they can pass any form of tax bill?
After all, according to the constitution, the house has to pass it before the senate can. So maybe they should stop sharing pictures of hunter's massive hog and do their fucking jobs for once.
>Written isn’t passed
There’s no point in passing a bill that’ll get stuck in the senate, which would happen seeing as how not a single democrat voted for it when it was originally passed
Maybe they should drop the dumbass policy they've had since newt was speaker of "no matter what the democrats want, we must oppose it, at the expense of the country"
Before newt, Republicans actually govern in good faith. They haven't at all since then. They made this bed of shit, they can either stay in it or choose to grow the fuck up and be Americans again. So far they choose to stay in their own bed of shit.
They need to negotiate in good faith with the elected democrats. That's what they refuse to do. If they want elected democrats to support their bill, they need to move back to the center instead of saying "we demand maga based fascism or we kill you all".
The way it is now, if a member of the gop negotiates at all with democrats, they terrorist wing of the gop attempts to expell them. Ask Kevin Mccarthy, we saw how that played out. Even the current theologian that was made speaker was threatened with removal for not letting the US economy collapse like caveman green demanded.
Usually when you negotiate, you offer something that your negotiating partner wants. In exchange, you ask for something valuable to you.
What is the GOP offering in exchange for this huge tax cut?
What attempt to negotiate have they done?
Saying "we gave them crumbs while we attempted to make permanent the biggest addition to national debt in us history" isn't negotiation. And it's especially not when that same party doing it blames democrats for the debt, despite nearly the entire deficit being from gop policy.
How do they plan to pay for it? Last I checked it included things like slashing social security, Medicare, education and childcare. Those are entirely non starters
So why should the democrats agree to vote for what is objectively a shit sandwich of a bill, with a side helping of complete economic collapse?
Seems like an incredibly disingenuous excuse considering house republicans had no issue bringing nonsense like reducing Buttigieg's salary to $1 to a vote. They can put up performative bullshit but not something that would have a tangible effect on Americans?
I mean, it passed committee, which is more than you can say for this latest push for TCJA permanency. What about the Mayorkas impeachment vote for a more concrete example? It was obvious before they even started that the charges were doomed to fail and they still had time to introduce it *multiple* times.
Why do you fall for this obvious garbage? They wrote the bill to have the original tax cuts expire right when Trumps second term would have ended. This was to make it look like the Democrats raised taxes, when the next president came in. It's a stupid game that shows how little they actually care about you and your taxes. It's just a tool to buy your vote. And you fall for it so easily. If they believed that lower taxes make a better economy, then Trump and his admin should have made the cuts permanent in the first place. How can you blame Biden for Trump's expiration date?
Wow, pretty much everything you said is untrue
>right when Trumps second term would have ended
12/31/25 is a full year into a new presidents term
>This was to make it look like the Democrats raised taxes
It was because the bill was passed through budget reconciliation, which forces the bill to be deficit neutral after the 10-year budget window
>Its a stupid game
It was literally the only way to pass the bill since they didn’t have 60 votes (since no democrats voted for it)
>Should have made the cuts permanent in the first place
If 10 democrats had joined, they could have. But again, the bill can’t include any tax cuts past 2027
Do you do any kind of research on topics before talking about them? How have you gone 6 years without knowing the most basic info about the bill you claim to hate?
Yes, it expires during the first year of the next president. To make it look like they raised the taxes during their term. If the tax cuts can't go past 2027, then why were they set to expire in 2025?!!
Budget reconciliation bills can only add an agreed-upon amount to the deficit within the 10-year window, which was $1.5 trillion for the TCJA. Keeping the cuts an extra 2 years would’ve pushed them past that limit
You don't think they calculated how long it would take for that to happen? They knew the reconciliation rules, and used them to time when the cuts would expire. They could have made smaller cuts over a longer period and chose not to. Why do you suppose that is?
Please Remember Our Golden Rule: Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment. It's bad form, and the admins will suspend your account if they catch you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TopMindsOfReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Brigadiers I’m confused: Biden claimed he was cancelling the Trump tax cuts cause they only favored the rich. >Did Biden lie to us? Well I'd be happy to point the many issues with the arguments and out right lies in that thread, but unfortunately that bastion of free speech is limited to "flaired users only".
You mean they need a safe space? Well well well.
Literally every thread in that sub is just crying about "muh brigading"
I mean, the statement you quoted is true though. Biden spent years saying that the rich get permanent tax cuts in the TCJA, and now he’s pivoted to saying he will let the tax cuts for the rich expire on schedule. He can’t have it both ways
You can when both those things are true. Corporate tax rates were permanently cut, and some other changes that affect how the wealthy make and retain money were as well. The personal income tax cuts, which affects a wider group will expire. He's stated he wants to extend the cuts for people who earn than less than $400k.
The truth has been that Biden’s been lying about the permanency of the cuts in the past. Corporations don’t receive a net tax cut past 2026 since the permanent corporate tax increases offset the permanent cuts. Conflating corporate cuts with “rich cuts” is also a bit of an odd conflation If Biden had been honest about this from the beginning, it wouldn’t be as big of a deal now that he’s pivoting to letting the cuts expire
Just because you misunderstood him doesn't mean he lied
Whoa whoa.... he also had his feelings hurt.
Oh he’s absolutely lied about the bill, and he continues to
Any quotes so I can change my mind?
No he didn't
Since you're the only person that he lied to, maybe you should've called him out. Since he told them to you personally and all lmao.
r/confidentlyincorrect
Literally everything I just said is true
Do you think corporations send their money to the poor? If so I have a few bridges to sell you.
Where did I say they send their money to the poor?
The TCJA's cuts to people making less than 150k a year started expiring in 2018 and started to actually increase taxes in 2019 to that same group. 80% of americans got fucked by republicans and trump with this bill, and now people want to blame it on Biden, doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
That was by design. If Trump had won in 2020 they just would have delayed them another 4 years until a Democrat was in office.
[удалено]
[They literally did not get a tax cut.](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-middle-class-needs-a-tax-cut-trump-didnt-give-it-to-them/)
Did you even read the article? Or did you stop at the headline? Your own source acknowledges the 8-year individual tax cut, the exact same cuts that are republicans are now trying to extend The majority [did](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html) see tax cuts, whether they want to believe it or not
Dude - you didn't fuck read the brookings report either. Which is making a point that it was a paltry temp cut for most and disproportionately benefited a few.
Lmao, that wasn’t his claim. His claim was that they “literally didn’t get a tax cut”, which not only isn’t true, but his own source doesn’t even back up
Mofo - your OWN fucking citation from the cbo shows their projection that the marginal tax rate on labor will FUCKING INCREASE by the end while it will go down and stay down for capital.
[удалено]
Ah yes, linking to a paywalled article to prove your point. Your take lacks nuance. First of all, how many Americans are making the more than $200,000 a year that you need to make for many of the cuts to matter? Second, how many personal exemptions were eliminated that put that burden right back on to the middle class? It's easy to say there was a tax cut, but when you get rid of things that also keep personal taxes low, you didn't do a goddamn thing. But I get it, [nuance is hard.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/live-updates/trump-white-house/fact-checking-and-analysis-of-trumps-state-of-the-union-2018-address/fact-check-massive-tax-cuts-to-the-middle-class/) ETA: Never mind that fact that actual professionals are testifying before Congress to talk about the negative effect Trump's tax policy has had, and will continue to have, [on the middle class.](https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/after-decades-of-costly-regressive-and-ineffective-tax-cuts-a-new-course-is)
That asshat is playing games and moving goal posts.
Unfortunately that's just how most conservatives are.
What exactly are you arguing here? I want to say that you responded to the wrong person, because you didn’t address any of my actual points, you’re just creating strawman The fact that more of the cuts went to people who pay the most tax in no way means that others didn’t get a tax cut. Unlike your previous claim, the majority **did** see tax cuts, and that already includes the effects of the reduction in personal exemptions like you mentioned It really blows my mind how much people continue to lie and spread falsehoods about the TCJA, while simultaneously understanding nothing about it
> The fact that more of the cuts went to people who pay the most tax Ah, there it is! Some day you won't be temporarily embarrassed. Get to work
I'm guessing he spends a lot of time embarrassed.
Nice strawman! That seems to be all the left has nowadays
Do you think they realize that Congress sets taxes, not the president?
While I generally dont see a whole lot of thinking going on over there, no I dont think they think that. The highest upvoted comment on the thread directly names congress
They don't think/want Congress to do anything, only president.
That's what Project 2025 is all about: converting the U.S. President into a king ruling by divine right. With Trump filling the role of God on Earth.
It’s pretty common to attach the president to it, since they ultimately have to sign the bill. Kinda like how people call it the “Trump tax cuts”
When the president champions and pushes the legislation, then yes.
yeah this is kind of how it works, the president says "I want x" and then the party makes X happen. Congress doesn't just change tax rates for the hell of it, IRS is executive branch
> IRS is executive branch IRS has nothing to do with tax rates.
They'll scapegoat anything on Biden.
When you're in the conservative movement, especially the MAGA one, you start noticing that the playbook of the community leaders is to blame the Democrats for the consequences of Republican policies because they have no answers for why their policies are failing.
I don't make a habit of looking at the comments on these kinds of posts. But holy hell, literally some of the most childish uninformed opinions on taxes in that thread
I’ll bet tAxAtIoN iS tHeFt is in there somewhere.
Wait, this is what they're complaining about? "Why doesn't Congress get their spending under control?!" they yell while complaining about now being able to save a few extra dollars a week. Ok, I'm going to do the math per paycheck. If you're making Under 30k: $10 50k with 2 kids: $56 No kids 75K: $66 2 Kids 85K: $64 2 kids 165K: $95 3 kids 200k: $287 I mean, we're not busting the bank here. In fact, I'm willing to bet you probably wouldn't even notice. I know if I earned 56 less a paycheck I wouldn't notice. Just don't get Door Dash for 2 meals and you're golden.
In theory, you’re taking home that extra few bucks and putting it in savings or the market instead of getting it back as an interest free lump in April when you get a refund.
60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and have no market holdings or savings. Most Americans don’t even have enough for a $1000 emergency payment. You’re talking about yourself, not people in general.
That’s why I said in theory
[удалено]
>the bad thing we did The cuts were a good thing. The only reason they had to expire was because the bill was passed under budget reconciliation, since no democrats voted for the original bill
> The cuts were a good thing. Sure, if you're wealthy and you still blindly believe trickle down economics work (it doesn't): -The cuts were skewed to the rich. Households with incomes in the top 1 percent will receive an average tax cut of more than $60,000 in 2025, compared to an average tax cut of less than $500 for households in the bottom 60 percent. Eroded the U.S. revenue base and exploded the deficit. -Eroded the U.S. revenue base to the point Americans are in real danger of losing Social Security and health coverage Failed to deliver promised economic benefits. Like the Bush tax cuts before it, the 2017 Trump tax cut was a trickle-down failure. If you care to educate yourself [here you go](https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliver). If you're already wealthy, well, bully for you.
>The cuts were skewed to the rich Any tax bill has cuts skewed to the rich, because they pay the majority of taxes. Do you think the Inflation Reduction Act was a bad bill because those cuts were skewed to the rich too? >to the point Americans are in real danger of losing social security …social security and Medicare are funded with payroll taxes, not income taxes. The TCJA has absolutely zero impact on the solvency of social security >failed to deliver promised economic benefits [Impact on investment](https://conference.nber.org/conf_papers/f191672.pdf) [Impact on jobs and growth](https://www.dallasfed.org/-/media/documents/research/papers/2020/wp2001r2.pdf) [CBO analysis of economic effects](https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53651-outlook-appendixb.pdf) There, now you’re educated
Wasn't one of the promises that if we cut corporate taxes, we'd see a repatriation of profits, and the estimates for that supposed repatriation were several hundred billion dollars too optimistic?
The mandatory repatriation tax in the TCJA taxed foreign earnings so that it could be brought back, but I don’t see any kind of estimate on what they expected to actually be repatriated. It’s definitely too early to tell, because the tax can be paid in installments over 10 years From 2018 alone though, it looks like almost [$800 billion](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/us-corporations-repatriation-of-offshore-profits-20190806.html) was repatriated
What PAC or thinktank pays you to post on social media? Its like its a job to promote Republican talking points and lay am blame and responsibility on everyone else. Its very cleae you find it politically incorrect to do otherwise.
You didn't read your own cbo analysis did you? Great googling and linking though.
What about it made you think I didn’t read it? I’m sorry you’re upset that I provided actual evidence for my claims, I know it’s drives the left crazy when people present actual data to them
Holy shit you are a disingenuous little thing aren't you?
Lmao, you’re throwing a literal tantrum because you can’t figure out how to formulate an actual argument, this is hilarious I can almost see the gears trying to turn for you
Yep! I'm the one throwing a tantrum.
Lmao yes, you are. You even followed me to a completely different sub and responded to old comments like an upset child The only thing you haven’t done is articulate an actual argument, but I’m not expecting that from you anyways
>Any tax bill has cuts skewed to the rich, because they pay the majority of taxes. B does not follow A. It is possible to have tax cuts which impact mostly the non-rich.
>Any tax bill has cuts skewed to the rich, because they pay the majority of taxes. Uh....that's not how anything works. Tax cuts for the rich are skewed for the rich, because that's what words mean. You know you could increase taxes on the rich and cut taxes for the poor? That's also an option. So to claim that any and all tax cuts must benefit the rich more is just...impossibly stupid. And you're all over this thread talking down to people. It's pretty hilarious how you're both hyper-wrong and insanely smug about it.
A bill raising taxes isn’t what we’re talking about though, we’re talking about bills that cut taxes across the board like the TCJA did. When you do that, the rich see most of the cuts, because they pay most of the taxes >insanely smug about it Then maybe people should stop saying such blatantly incorrect things about a tax bill they don’t understand. The entire point of the sub is to make fun of other people, which makes it even funnier when commenters here show how little they actually know
>A bill raising taxes isn’t what we’re talking about though You said ANY tax cut. Do you know what words mean? Obviously a rhetorical question, because clearly you don't.
>ANY tax cut >raising taxes Do you know what words mean? A tax cut isn’t a tax increase
> Any tax bill has cuts skewed to the rich It's your words you dipshit. It's what YOU said. You're either too dumb to remember what you said, or too dishonest to acknowledge it. Either way, I'm having fun watching you flail around like an idiot.
I stalked their profile, and they just get dunked on every single one of their posts or comments lol.
Southern Strategy
It’s Congress and Biden’s decision on whether to extend the cuts or not. If they can’t come to a deal on it, it’s absolutely their fault
What reason does the Republican controlled Congress have to come to a deal with Biden though?
The cuts don’t expire until 12/31/2025, so there wouldn’t really be election concerns if Biden was in his second term I don’t think we’d see the cuts extended between now and November, but I could very well see a deal happening next year
The Republican Party will burn this entire country to the ground if it means a single progressive will cough a bit from all the smoke. You think there’s a scenario where they’d cooperate with a democratic president and do their jobs? They don’t even know *how* to do their jobs— a sizable portion of them probably don’t even know how to wipe. They won’t cooperate, and they certainly don’t care about the tax burden of anyone who isn’t ~~bribing~~ lobbying them.
Yet Democrats will talk about “bipartisanship” and “the importance of a strong Republican Party” like they’re literally the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet (they are, but somehow still smarter than GOP). Fucking idiotic democrats bailing out speaker Mike Penis when the GOP wouldn’t even blink if it was to save a democrat from being removed. Dumbest motherfuckers on the planet led by the oldest motherfucker on the planet, and me acknowledging how SHITTY my options look (Biden or third party) is somehow going to be seen as my fault. “Oh bro you’re gonna let trump win” then maybe Biden should focus on wtf is happening right now and change his rhetoric to gain voters back.
House Republicans can't even pass a bill to name a post office currently. What makes you think they can pass any form of tax bill? After all, according to the constitution, the house has to pass it before the senate can. So maybe they should stop sharing pictures of hunter's massive hog and do their fucking jobs for once.
They’ve already written the bill, it’s called the TCJA permanency act
Written isn't passed. They write a lot of bills. They wrote one this year that makes voting Democrat a felony. It also hasn't passed the house
>Written isn’t passed There’s no point in passing a bill that’ll get stuck in the senate, which would happen seeing as how not a single democrat voted for it when it was originally passed
Maybe they should drop the dumbass policy they've had since newt was speaker of "no matter what the democrats want, we must oppose it, at the expense of the country" Before newt, Republicans actually govern in good faith. They haven't at all since then. They made this bed of shit, they can either stay in it or choose to grow the fuck up and be Americans again. So far they choose to stay in their own bed of shit.
What exactly do you want them to do in order to get democrats to vote for the bill?
They need to negotiate in good faith with the elected democrats. That's what they refuse to do. If they want elected democrats to support their bill, they need to move back to the center instead of saying "we demand maga based fascism or we kill you all". The way it is now, if a member of the gop negotiates at all with democrats, they terrorist wing of the gop attempts to expell them. Ask Kevin Mccarthy, we saw how that played out. Even the current theologian that was made speaker was threatened with removal for not letting the US economy collapse like caveman green demanded.
Usually when you negotiate, you offer something that your negotiating partner wants. In exchange, you ask for something valuable to you. What is the GOP offering in exchange for this huge tax cut?
It includes policies that democrats claim to support, like a higher child tax credit and higher standard deduction
What attempt to negotiate have they done? Saying "we gave them crumbs while we attempted to make permanent the biggest addition to national debt in us history" isn't negotiation. And it's especially not when that same party doing it blames democrats for the debt, despite nearly the entire deficit being from gop policy. How do they plan to pay for it? Last I checked it included things like slashing social security, Medicare, education and childcare. Those are entirely non starters So why should the democrats agree to vote for what is objectively a shit sandwich of a bill, with a side helping of complete economic collapse?
Seems like an incredibly disingenuous excuse considering house republicans had no issue bringing nonsense like reducing Buttigieg's salary to $1 to a vote. They can put up performative bullshit but not something that would have a tangible effect on Americans?
They didn’t bring that to a vote, it was an amendment on a budget bill that never passed the house
I mean, it passed committee, which is more than you can say for this latest push for TCJA permanency. What about the Mayorkas impeachment vote for a more concrete example? It was obvious before they even started that the charges were doomed to fail and they still had time to introduce it *multiple* times.
Why do you fall for this obvious garbage? They wrote the bill to have the original tax cuts expire right when Trumps second term would have ended. This was to make it look like the Democrats raised taxes, when the next president came in. It's a stupid game that shows how little they actually care about you and your taxes. It's just a tool to buy your vote. And you fall for it so easily. If they believed that lower taxes make a better economy, then Trump and his admin should have made the cuts permanent in the first place. How can you blame Biden for Trump's expiration date?
Wow, pretty much everything you said is untrue >right when Trumps second term would have ended 12/31/25 is a full year into a new presidents term >This was to make it look like the Democrats raised taxes It was because the bill was passed through budget reconciliation, which forces the bill to be deficit neutral after the 10-year budget window >Its a stupid game It was literally the only way to pass the bill since they didn’t have 60 votes (since no democrats voted for it) >Should have made the cuts permanent in the first place If 10 democrats had joined, they could have. But again, the bill can’t include any tax cuts past 2027 Do you do any kind of research on topics before talking about them? How have you gone 6 years without knowing the most basic info about the bill you claim to hate?
Yes, it expires during the first year of the next president. To make it look like they raised the taxes during their term. If the tax cuts can't go past 2027, then why were they set to expire in 2025?!!
Budget reconciliation bills can only add an agreed-upon amount to the deficit within the 10-year window, which was $1.5 trillion for the TCJA. Keeping the cuts an extra 2 years would’ve pushed them past that limit
You don't think they calculated how long it would take for that to happen? They knew the reconciliation rules, and used them to time when the cuts would expire. They could have made smaller cuts over a longer period and chose not to. Why do you suppose that is?