sycasey said:

---

I'd also say that if you live in Orange County, I'd give better than even money that your Congressional district is represented by a Democrat after 2018.

---

I will take that bet. Last November, while Clinton was winning big statewide, the Republican incumbent won by 16 points over his Democratic challenger.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I think Republicans just guaranteed their tax bill will get zero Democratic votes.

---

I can recall years of GOP complaints that they were shut out of the Obamacare legislation and now they are doing the same thing with the tax bill.

---

Except it was always a lie that they were shut out of the Obamacare legislation. They refused to participate in any productive way.

---

Don't disagree. Noting the irony since there will be no Democratic input after the GOP did this.

Also, even more Senate changes per CNN:

The Senate tax overhaul plan underwent some big changes overnight.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, proposed a package of sweeping changes, including growing the child tax credit, reducing the tax rates for some income brackets, and reducing the tax penalty for not having health insurance to zero effectively eliminating the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate.
Also among the proposals: making nearly all of the tax changes for individuals temporary, while keeping major corporate changes permanent.

Dumb question: How do they make the corporate changes permanent and meet reconciliation requirements? Not being snarly I don't know the process.

---

A big part of how they permanently offset the corporate tax deduction is by making the tax brackets increase based on "chained CPI" rather than regular CPI. Chained CPI goes up more slowly and since the inflated increase in brackets reduces taxes, moving the brackets up more slowly is effectively a tax increase on everybody. Net result is a permanent corporate tax cut offset by a permanent across-the-board individual tax increase.

This is what passes for draining the swamp in some circles.

---

While I don't like the approach being used, I still don't get how you can make permanent corporate tax cuts (or any permanent tax cuts) through reconciliation. What if there is no CPI increase, chained or otherwise. How do you not create a deficit with "permanent" corporate tax cuts thereby blowing the reconciliation requirements?

---

It's all based on the CBO model, which has an assumed CPI increase and an assumed chained CPI increase which is lower. Assumed being the key word here.

---

So basically you can get around reconciliation by deeming very aggressive assumptions? Look at the last 5 years and the CPI index has ben low. Doesn't that make the whole process a sham?

---

I think the CBO has a history of doing credible analysis, but yes, if the CBO were ever politicized and lost its integrity it could play with assumptions such as you say.

As for the current process being a sham, well, only if you believe every financial model used is a sham. Assumptions should be reasonable, consistent, and explainable. That is what keeps it from being a sham.

---

Okay, I didn't appreciate that they used CBO numbers.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'd also say that if you live in Orange County, I'd give better than even money that your Congressional district is represented by a Democrat after 2018.

---

I will take that bet. Last November, while Clinton was winning big statewide, the Republican incumbent won by 16 points over his Democratic challenger.

---

Ed Royce's district, then? I think that could flip in a wave election. It would be one of the tougher Democratic gets in OC, though.

Sure looks to me like somewhere around $125,000 is where the turnip twists. I think from there to about $500K is going to be quite painful. Below 125 and above 500 may be happy, but that seems to be nailing a lot of highly incentivized individuals. This does not look like much of a Republican bill at all, except a great gift to corporations.

But then my experience over the years has been taxes never go down. The Dems increase social spending. The Repubs rebut and get in and increase defense spending. So, an endless cycle of raises ensues, as the national debt also rises. We have less of a taxing problem that we do a spending problem. And that has gone on for years.

Just try to keep a positive attitude as you write the check, and life goes on.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Sure looks to me like somewhere around $125,000 is where the turnip twists. I think from there to about $500K is going to be quite painful. Below 125 and above 500 may be happy, but that seems to be nailing a lot of highly incentivized individuals. This does not look like much of a Republican bill at all, except a great gift to corporations.

But then my experience over the years has been taxes never go down. The Dems increase social spending. The Repubs rebut and get in and increase defense spending. So, an endless cycle of raises ensues, as the national debt also rises. We have less of a taxing problem that we do a spending problem. And that has gone on for years.

Just try to keep a positive attitude as you write the check, and life goes on.

---

Raise taxes on the lower end to cut them at the top end? That looks exactly like a Republican bill.

As others have pointed out, 20 point swings in Democrats favor that results in a Republican victory is not a sign of the status quo.

Wave elections aren't about changing minds, they are about turnout.

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Sure looks to me like somewhere around $125,000 is where the turnip twists. I think from there to about $500K is going to be quite painful. Below 125 and above 500 may be happy, but that seems to be nailing a lot of highly incentivized individuals. This does not look like much of a Republican bill at all, except a great gift to corporations.

But then my experience over the years has been taxes never go down. The Dems increase social spending. The Repubs rebut and get in and increase defense spending. So, an endless cycle of raises ensues, as the national debt also rises. We have less of a taxing problem that we do a spending problem. And that has gone on for years.

Just try to keep a positive attitude as you write the check, and life goes on.

---

Raise taxes on the lower end to cut them at the top end? That looks exactly like a Republican bill.

---

Are you sure of that dajo? Nothing is cast in stone right now, but it looks like anyone under $50K is fine or better. Don't think there is much break between 50 and 125 but a little. That to me is middle class. Above 125 or maybe 150 grab your ankles, especially in California, NY, NJ, etc.

That does not seem the typical Demo patronage. So they are punishing their own as I see it to give corporations a break.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Sure looks to me like somewhere around $125,000 is where the turnip twists. I think from there to about $500K is going to be quite painful. Below 125 and above 500 may be happy, but that seems to be nailing a lot of highly incentivized individuals. This does not look like much of a Republican bill at all, except a great gift to corporations.

But then my experience over the years has been taxes never go down. The Dems increase social spending. The Repubs rebut and get in and increase defense spending. So, an endless cycle of raises ensues, as the national debt also rises. We have less of a taxing problem that we do a spending problem. And that has gone on for years.

Just try to keep a positive attitude as you write the check, and life goes on.

---

Raise taxes on the lower end to cut them at the top end? That looks exactly like a Republican bill.

---

Are you sure of that dajo? Nothing is cast in stone right now, but it looks like anyone under $50K is fine or better. Don't think there is much break between 50 and 125 but a little. That to me is middle class. Above 125 or maybe 150 grab your ankles, especially in California, NY, NJ, etc.

That does not seem the typical Demo patronage. So they are punishing their own as I see it to give corporations a break.

---

Is it true that when we whine that the high earners get all the benefits from a tax cut that the bottom 50% of all earners pay 2.8% of the total taxes and the top 50% pay 97.2%? Guess, if true, they would have to get a ton of the bennies.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Is it true that when we whine that the high earners get all the benefits from a tax cut that the bottom 50% of all earners pay 2.8% of the total taxes and the top 50% pay 97.2%? Guess, if true, they would have to get a ton of the bennies.

---

The point is that you (not you personally, but anyone) shouldn't sell this as some huge win for the masses. This is a huge win for people with generational wealth. It's a huge increase to the national debt for everyone else with some people getting a small tax break now, some paying more now and almost everyone (apart from the wealthy) paying more in taxes by the end of the decade once a number of the provisions sunset.

Incomes around $100k - $500k certainly get hosed. These are the working professionals that have voted Republican for years under the misguided belief that the Republican Party is looking out for their taxes.

People with incomes above $500k reap great rewards. These are the owners of highly profitable businesses and their heirs which is the only thing the Republican Party cares for.

The hard working $100k - $500k crowd got duped, as did so much of the rest of the country.

And Odonto's analysis is wrong. This bill raises tax on everybody above $10k income by 2027.

In California, having your own Gulfstream is common for middle class.

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'd also say that if you live in Orange County, I'd give better than even money that your Congressional district is represented by a Democrat after 2018.

---

I will take that bet. Last November, while Clinton was winning big statewide, the Republican incumbent won by 16 points over his Democratic challenger.

---

Ed Royce's district, then? I think that could flip in a wave election. It would be one of the tougher Democratic gets in OC, though.

---

Wrong district. Rich people down the coast are not voting Democrat. If anything it is more GOP as Cyrstal Cove area is being developed.

dajo9 said:

---

Incomes around $100k - $500k certainly get hosed. These are the working professionals that have voted Republican for years under the misguided belief that the Republican Party is looking out for their taxes.

People with incomes above $500k reap great rewards. These are the owners of highly profitable businesses and their heirs which is the only thing the Republican Party cares for.

The hard working $100k - $500k crowd got duped, as did so much of the rest of the country.

---

I think that depends on the individual case. People wth ordinary income coming from pass thoughts not living in high tax states should love this legislation, especially if your income is over $100K. Even if your in a high tax state, you probably make out okay due to the drop in pass through rates. As you start going over $500K you really get limited use of your deductions in any event due to phase outs, but your also not getting a rate reduction either, so regardless of your state, if the income is wages, your a mild loser. The guys really getting shafted are $100K to $500K income earners in in high tax states. Then again, does the GOP really have much representation in these states anyway?

There also are major losses from a business standpoint if the Senate Version (at least the last one I read) gets through: people that own expensive homes, the mortgage industry, the insurance industry (surcharge on profits and screwing medical insurers by eliminating the mandate), and Big Pharma (surcharges on profits). The last two are paybacks for lobbying against Obamacare repeal I assume.

Moving pas the politics for a minute, this tax bill is going to be disruptive to the economy because it has so many pronounced winners and losers. For that reason alone, it should give everyone pause for thought.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'd also say that if you live in Orange County, I'd give better than even money that your Congressional district is represented by a Democrat after 2018.

---

I will take that bet. Last November, while Clinton was winning big statewide, the Republican incumbent won by 16 points over his Democratic challenger.

---

Ed Royce's district, then? I think that could flip in a wave election. It would be one of the tougher Democratic gets in OC, though.

---

Wrong district. Rich people down the coast are not voting Democrat. If anything it is more GOP as Cyrstal Cove area is being developed.

---

Rohrabacher? I'd say he's more likely to go down than Royce. Democrats hadn't taken this district seriously before, but they will now.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Incomes around $100k - $500k certainly get hosed. These are the working professionals that have voted Republican for years under the misguided belief that the Republican Party is looking out for their taxes.

People with incomes above $500k reap great rewards. These are the owners of highly profitable businesses and their heirs which is the only thing the Republican Party cares for.

The hard working $100k - $500k crowd got duped, as did so much of the rest of the country.

---

I think that depends on the individual case. People wth ordinary income coming from pass thoughts not living in high tax states should love this legislation, especially if your income is over $100K. Even if your in a high tax state, you probably make out okay due to the drop in pass through rates. As you start going over $500K you really get limited use of your deductions in any event due to phase outs, but your also not getting a rate reduction either, so regardless of your state, if the income is wages, your a mild loser. The guys really getting shafted are $100K to $500K income earners in in high tax states. Then again, does the GOP really have much representation in these states anyway?

There also are major losses from a business standpoint if the Senate Version (at least the last one I read) gets through: people that own expensive homes, the mortgage industry, the insurance industry (surcharge on profits and screwing medical insurers by eliminating the mandate), and Big Pharma (surcharges on profits). The last two are paybacks for lobbying against Obamacare repeal I assume.

Moving pas the politics for a minute, this tax bill is going to be disruptive to the economy because it has so many pronounced winners and losers. For that reason alone, it should give everyone pause for thought.

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'd also say that if you live in Orange County, I'd give better than even money that your Congressional district is represented by a Democrat after 2018.

---

I will take that bet. Last November, while Clinton was winning big statewide, the Republican incumbent won by 16 points over his Democratic challenger.

---

Ed Royce's district, then? I think that could flip in a wave election. It would be one of the tougher Democratic gets in OC, though.

---

Wrong district. Rich people down the coast are not voting Democrat. If anything it is more GOP as Cyrstal Cove area is being developed.

---

Rohrabacher? I'd say he's more likely to go down than Royce. Democrats hadn't taken this district seriously before, but they will now.

---

You don't know the District.

Doesn't every tax bill have winners and losers.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'd also say that if you live in Orange County, I'd give better than even money that your Congressional district is represented by a Democrat after 2018.

---

I will take that bet. Last November, while Clinton was winning big statewide, the Republican incumbent won by 16 points over his Democratic challenger.

---

Ed Royce's district, then? I think that could flip in a wave election. It would be one of the tougher Democratic gets in OC, though.

---

Wrong district. Rich people down the coast are not voting Democrat. If anything it is more GOP as Cyrstal Cove area is being developed.

---

Rohrabacher? I'd say he's more likely to go down than Royce. Democrats hadn't taken this district seriously before, but they will now.

---

You don't know the District.

---

We'll see. I notice he's part of Mueller's investigation now.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-fbi-russia-investigation-looking-into-1510338151-htmlstory.html

Sonofoski said:

---

Doesn't every tax bill have winners and losers.

---

Agreed but this one has sweeping overhauls which may destabilize different industries or state budgets.

If the people of California don't bounce the Russian agents Rohrbacher and Nunes I will be ashamed of my home state regardless of district. Some things are bigger than domestic politics.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Sonofoski said:

---

Doesn't every tax bill have winners and losers.

---

Agreed but this one has sweeping overhauls which may destabilize different industries or state budgets.

---

But that's what we(collectively as the USA) voted for. So we're getting exactly what we deserve.

No, the US collectively voted for Hillary. This is what the electoral college voted for.

Bummer about the Big Game

During Big Game week lots more analysis was done on the Republican tax plan and it turns out that a lot of what we all thought we knew was wrong. The more you look at the tax plan the more it is clear that everything that happens in the first 10 years is just a gimmick to try and get the tax plan passed. The ultimate goal is the permanent corporate tax while most of the other provisions expire in year 10. One provision that does not expire is the reversal of Obamacare and the subsidies to poor Americans that come with it.

The permanent corporate tax cut is offset by increases to individual taxpayers (achieved because annual inflation adjustments lower individual taxes, but this adjustment is reduced). The Obamacare subsidies end swinging those dollars back to the wealthy. By 2027 the poorer you are the more of a negative impact you will face. There are 19 states whose residences, overall, will face a negative impact and it's not who you would think. The 19 states (listed in the link below) are made up of 16 red states and 3 swing states (Florida, North Carolina, and Maine). This is due to demographics - ultimately the poorest states have the largest negative impact.

Once again showing that the biggest losers from the Trump / Republican tax plan are exactly the people who voted for them. It's almost enough to make me support the plan - but not quite.

https://itep.org/senatetaxplan/

Bad Bill and I am a supply side guy. Small business owners in California will either have to become a C Corp and leave the profits inside the corporation or pay more taxes.

C corps should pay the same as pass through companies. Raise the proposed C Corp Rate to 27.5% and lower the pass through rate to the same rate.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Sure looks to me like somewhere around $125,000 is where the turnip twists. I think from there to about $500K is going to be quite painful. Below 125 and above 500 may be happy, but that seems to be nailing a lot of highly incentivized individuals. This does not look like much of a Republican bill at all, except a great gift to corporations.

But then my experience over the years has been taxes never go down. The Dems increase social spending. The Repubs rebut and get in and increase defense spending. So, an endless cycle of raises ensues, as the national debt also rises. We have less of a taxing problem that we do a spending problem. And that has gone on for years.

Just try to keep a positive attitude as you write the check, and life goes on.

---

Raise taxes on the lower end to cut them at the top end? That looks exactly like a Republican bill.

---

Are you sure of that dajo? Nothing is cast in stone right now, but it looks like anyone under $50K is fine or better. Don't think there is much break between 50 and 125 but a little. That to me is middle class. Above 125 or maybe 150 grab your ankles, especially in California, NY, NJ, etc.

That does not seem the typical Demo patronage. So they are punishing their own as I see it to give corporations a break.

---

If one is claiming everyone making under 50k is better (I can neither confirm or refute that), everyone most definitely would exclude graduate students, who will get hammered... Which happens to be the original point of this thread due to its relavence to Cal. If education really is a taxable benefit, maybe the government should tax undergrads getting tuition waivers... And high schoolers too.

dajo9 said:

---

Once again showing that the biggest losers from the Trump / Republican tax plan are exactly the people who voted for them. It's almost enough to make me support the plan - but not quite.

https://itep.org/senatetaxplan/

---

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sarah-silverman-says-she-apos-183905052.html

Looks like this idiocy is going to pass. Good bye ESP program. Spoke with Cal and they really have no idea what they are going to do (other than encouraging people who have already signed up for ESP to pay off their seats before the end of the month). May give us a sugar rush of cash but it will be very short term. Starting January 1st these seats just got 20% more expensive (approximately).

Sebastabear said:

---

Looks like this idiocy is going to pass. Good bye ESP program. Spoke with Cal and they really have no idea what they are going to do (other than encouraging people who have already signed up for ESP to pay off their seats before the end of the month). May give us a sugar rush of cash but it will be very short term. Starting January 1st these seats just got 20% more expensive (approximately).

---

The Senate version of the tax bill does not have this provision. The House version does. However, things are changing so quickly that I no longer if this is true. It was true as of a week ago.

It's not a foregone conclusion that what actually becomes the passed tax bill will change whether donations for season tickets will be partially deductible but it very likely could happen.

CRBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Looks like this idiocy is going to pass. Good bye ESP program. Spoke with Cal and they really have no idea what they are going to do (other than encouraging people who have already signed up for ESP to pay off their seats before the end of the month). May give us a sugar rush of cash but it will be very short term. Starting January 1st these seats just got 20% more expensive (approximately).

---

The Senate version of the tax bill does not have this provision. The House version does. However, things are changing so quickly that I no longer if this is true. It was true as of a week ago.

It's not a foregone conclusion that what actually becomes the passed tax bill will change whether donations for season tickets will be partially deductible but it very likely could happen.

---

I'd heard it was being added to the Senate bill in an effort to find cash, but that could be old news and might not have materialized. Cal did note that a lot of very red states (Alabama) and purple swing states (Ohio) heavily utilize this deduction. Maybe someone from one of those states pulled it out.

Comes back though to the point that this thing is a mess. I don't think the Senators voting for it appreciate half of what's in there.

Sebastabear said:

---

Comes back though to the point that this thing is a mess. I don't think the Senators voting for it appreciate half of what's in there.

---

A lot of them literally don't know what's in it. McConnell just wants to pass something so he can take that back to his donors. There has been little to no deliberation about the specifics of the bill.

Recipe for disaster.

Sebastabear said:

---

CRBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Looks like this idiocy is going to pass. Good bye ESP program. Spoke with Cal and they really have no idea what they are going to do (other than encouraging people who have already signed up for ESP to pay off their seats before the end of the month). May give us a sugar rush of cash but it will be very short term. Starting January 1st these seats just got 20% more expensive (approximately).

---

The Senate version of the tax bill does not have this provision. The House version does. However, things are changing so quickly that I no longer if this is true. It was true as of a week ago.

It's not a foregone conclusion that what actually becomes the passed tax bill will change whether donations for season tickets will be partially deductible but it very likely could happen.

---

I'd heard it was being added to the Senate bill in an effort to find cash, but that could be old news and might not have materialized. Cal did note that a lot of very red states (Alabama) and purple swing states (Ohio) heavily utilize this deduction. Maybe someone from one of those states pulled it out.

Comes back though to the point that this thing is a mess. I don't think the Senators voting for it appreciate half of what's in there.

---

You're right. It's in there. You can see it on page 294 of this pdf of the bill. It's not the final bill but it's in both the House and Senate versions so it's very likely to be a part of the bill that gets enacted.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_LgYQXsxWFkBe958xbE9W19R9_eK_z5M/view

dajo9 said:

---

If the people of California don't bounce the Russian agents Rohrbacher and Nunes I will be ashamed of my home state regardless of district. Some things are bigger than domestic politics.

---

Nunes a Russian agent, hahahahahahahah, put down the bong.

CRBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

CRBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

MLooks like this idiocy is going to pass. Good bye ESP program. Spoke with Cal and they really have no idea what they are going to do (other than encouraging people who have already signed up for ESP to pay off their seats before the end of the month). May give us a sugar rush of cash but it will be very short term. Starting January 1st these seats just got 20% more expensive (approximately).

---

The Senate version of the tax bill does not have this provision. The House version does. However, things are changing so quickly that I no longer if this is true. It was true as of a week ago.

It's not a foregone conclusion that what actually becomes the passed tax bill will change whether donations for season tickets will be partially deductible but it very likely could happen.

---

I'd heard it was being added to the Senate bill in an effort to find cash, but that could be old news and might not have materialized. Cal did note that a lot of very red states (Alabama) and purple swing states (Ohio) heavily utilize this deduction. Maybe someone from one of those states pulled it out.

Comes back though to the point that this thing is a mess. I don't think the Senators voting for it appreciate half of what's in there.

---

You're right. It's in there. You can see it on page 294 of this pdf of the bill. It's not the final bill but it's in both the House and Senate versions so it's very likely to be a part of the bill that gets enacted.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_LgYQXsxWFkBe958xbE9W19R9_eK_z5M/view

---

Well that's pretty much a biblical disaster for us. Ignoring the rest of this abomination of a bill, we spent half a billion dollars on a renovation using an already ill-conceived and poorly performing business model. And then the tax laws got changed and blew that model to smithereens. When I asked Cal said they literally had no idea what to do, which seems appropriate. Sigh.