The unconscionable sins of the Republican tax scheme have been well-documented elsewhere; among its senseless crimes against altruism and economics, the new law will result in tax increases for nearly 100 million working Americans while lightening the burdens of corporations and billionaires and exploding the debt to the tune of at least $1.5 trillion.
Just STOP with the lies. Please.
That “analysis” assumes as fact something that will never happen, that being the expiration, in 2025, of the changes in the child and standard deductions.
Are the Democrats, in 2025, even if they control everything, going to oppose the extension of these major working class benefits, and thereby support the largest tax increase in history, directly targeting the working class? Tell us now please, if that;s true, so we can plan our votes accordingly. Because no advocate of the working class would ever fail to extend those deductions, as you seem to assume the Democrats will indeed fail to do.
Lightning the burden of corporations……. One easily becomes bemused at the paucity of that analysis, and how easily it is forgotten that just a few short months ago, the Democrats were also in favor of lowering those tax rates to international levels, before they woke up a year ago and realized that Trump Would Get Credit, and it is far better that Americans continue to suffer in a slow economy than Trump Getting Credit for Anything.
Why did they favor them? Because the international corporations were going to get a tax break? NO. The international corporations used financial engineering to AVOID those taxes, paying rates as low as 4% in many cases. A vote against the new tax scheme was a vote FOR Exxon, Chevron, Boeing, Apple and Amazon, and the like, who use those engineering schemes to store vast amounts of wealth over seas, investing it there, and thus driving their taxes to nil. Most of these will see tax INCREASE from the new scheme, as their financial engineering schemes disappear under the new law.
So, why is it important to move to a territorial tax system and lower those rates? Well, its not the large corporation that’s going to benefit directly; they will get to move some money back home, and some of that will be used for job and wage growth, although most will probably end up being used for stock buybacks. (Which seem to have become a bad thing in the American left, when in fact buybacks are a way of sharing corporate wealth with shareholders. But, let’s not digress.)
BUT, the true benefit goes to the individual with the small business, and the medium sized, domestic businesses who hire in the US and who are GROWING in the US; unable to avail themselves of the aforementioned financial engineering schemes, it was they who were bearing the brunt of the 39% fed/state all-in corporate tax rate.
(I assume that most people know this next part, but I just was reminded earlier today that not everyone does . Job growth in the US, to the tune of about 70% of all new jobs, historically, does NOT come from the large corporate sector, but from small and medium sized businesses and startups. So HELL YES you want to lower taxes on those businesses, because your citizens are in need of the strong job growth that they traditionally deliver, and which they have *not* delivered since the meltdown of 2008.)
One last point, perhaps a quibble. You write:
exploding the debt to the tune of at least $1.5 trillion.
Well, that’s a bit misleading, in that you’ve cherrypicked left-leaning forecasters to get that number. The right-leaning forecasters believe it to be closer to 1T. But let’s not quibble about the number, we can all agree that it would have been better to have been a revenue neutral package.
But, “explode?” Depends on how you define the word, eh? If your 1.5T is accurate, that’s a deficit increase of 30% over the current forecasted baseline. If that’s “explode” to you, that’s fine. Sounds hyperbolic to me, but as I said, that’s a bit of a quibble.
What matters here is not to view the new tax scheme in a vacuum. It’s not perfect. But it’s a helluvalot better than what we had before, which clearly was hobbling job growth in the country.