Why the public doesn't like the tax bill

Should have said not spending cuts instead of spending increases.

Democrats will likely want to raise taxes after they get elected though. A surprise could be huge economic growth and more republicans elected and no spending cuts. A surprise.

Serious issues changed to seizes

The limitations on deducting property and state income taxes kills the middle class in high taxation states -- New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey -- all states that voted for Hillary.

Coincidence? I think not.

Politics in America -- the losers get fucked.

Tax bill was polling at about 33% last time I looked; Obamacare at over 50%

Yes there are lots of things to not like in the tax reform bill. I'm concerned about expenses in the future for my elder mother who is not rich and my older brothers and sisters and myself in future years when we will be using social services Medicare, social security, Medicaid etc. For now I think I might come out slightly ahead, could pay more in future years. Not really sure. I figure my mother will be paying more and that's not what I wanted. I did not want rules for iras to be affected either. Won't be able to recharactize an Ira to Roth IRA conversion anymore.

I even heard today Medicare could be cut. Said neither republicans nor democrats wanted Medicare cuts to start in 2018 so the president may hold off on signing the tax bill until 2018 so that cuts don't go into effect until 2019. Makes me a lot less happy with the bill if I hear my mother on Medicare and social security will have to pay more.

Who honestly thinks republicans will make middle class tax cuts permanent? I do not. Makes the bill even less popular.

Remember that 47% of the population don't pay federal income taxes, so they're just going to be losing benefits which means they're going to hate the bill. The majority of the other 53% aren't going to be able to use the deductions and end up paying more when the tax cuts expire and more for health insurance as well. They're also going to lose or face continuous threat of losing the most important benefits (medicare and SS) which are actually very popular programs.

This is who you voted for showing their true colors.

However since I know democrats will never go along with Obama care mandate repeal nor reduction in business taxes which I think will increase growth temporarily, I think they should pass this bill , then work with democrats to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid cuts and make middle class cuts permanent and hopefully in get a rise in economic growth with infrastructure spending. Cuts I wouldn't mind would be cuts to federal payrolls, not cuts in spending for the poor. I wouldn't mind if spending was increased to keep elder patients in assisted living or at home, nuch less expensive, than paying for them in a Medicaid facility after wiping out all their life savings. Medicaid facilities can cost 8000 a month for the same level of care as assisted living at only 4000 a month but if people don't have money, the government ends up paying. The government doesn't think about providing assistance first, then reducing costs, they just stick to pay only for Medicaid facilities.

I can hope I make lots of money and pay less taxes. Actually the government could get a huge tax boost if they let people take money out of iras and 401k's without the extra 10% tax penalty if you are under 65. Plus drop the rate down to 20% like a corporation. Should have asked someone to put that in tax bill to boost economic growth. Now that would have saved me a lot.

I think we would be in a recession right now if Hilary or sanders had won. Best choice among terrible choices. However trumps comments about fire and brimstone against North Korea like the world has never seen cost me thousands. Shouldn't have sold but I once used to believe what the president of the US said meant something. Demi's and republicans like two sides of same coin, taxes go up, spending goes up, we get shafted.

If the economy were this strong when a Democrat was as President, the liberals would be LDKing all over themselves. But Trump gets no credit for anything, ever.

Doesn't matter who is in power the middle class gets screwed !!!! Poor get it free, rich use tax shelters and can afford inflated prices, but middle class pays largest % of income in taxes to support all others benefits !!! My only question is..... WHEN ARE THE WHINING LIBERAL HOLLYWOOD ELITISTS GETTING THE HECK OUT OF THE COUNTRY AS THEY PROMISED ??? Surely, they are true to their word and not lying pieces of whale dung !!!!!

pension,

"The limitations on deducting property and state income taxes kills the middle class in high taxation states -- New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey -- all states that voted for Hillary. Coincidence? I think not."

Perhaps had they not always been able to use others outside their state to pay the bills, well they might have elected a responsible government. States like mine, can get along without even a state income tax OR other states money.

"Me, me, me, me, me," that's all I hear from you people! "Lower MY taxes, don't touch MY benefits, raise someone else's taxes, make the rich pay for it!" What bullshit! The top 1% already pays about 40% of the taxes in this country. Believe it or not, America has the most progressive tax code of any OECD country, more than any Scandinavian country! That's something Bernie Sanders won't tell you, I guess.

And of course Republicans will vote to extend the middle class tax cuts 8 years from now: they already voted to make middle class tax cuts permanent 4 years ago, while allowing tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. Oh, what, everyone forgot about that already? If you can't even remember past the last election cycle, then perhaps you shouldn't vote at all!

Even after the corporate tax cut, we're still going to have a rate that's higher than the average rate for Europe. Plus we have State level corporate taxes in this country. Did you all forget about those, too? Exactly how much do you want the rich and corporations to have to pay before you'll be satisfied? Personally, I'm not rich but I would be fine with my own taxes going up if it meant getting a corporate tax cut and a flat tax. That's fairness.

The only people who hate the tax bill are those who are dishonest about its' contents and the wealthy leeches in rich, liberal states who get to write off their excessive local taxes, which benefit them only and the interest on their million dollar homes, which again benefits them only. The poor working class who they piss on pay the tab for the rich liberals on the coasts. Fucking scream like the bitches you are, glad you're getting fucked. As for me? I am getting fucked too, but since it truly benefits middle class Americans, I will pay my extra $8,000.00 without whining that I can no longer cheat other Americans. The new corporate tax rate is in line with the rest of the western world and will bring jobs home. Of course the democratic base doesn't work so they don't care. The contribution of this current crop of democrats has been zero, but they should be pleased that they won a narrow victory over a pedophile. Crow about that bitches and cough up the bucks. In case anyone asks I estimate $8,000.00 more in Federal taxes for 2018.

Burl,

How about a federal sales tax? Works fairly well in states. Might be difficult to "equalize" it, if that needed to be done, or states could have an additional state tax as well. It would have one MAJOR benefit. Under the table pay, black money, etc would all be taxed if spent and at a rate above the standard sale tax rate.

I can't see any politician supporting that since it removes almost all their power.

@Clubber,

Sure, I'd be happy with a Federal sales tax. Or a flat income tax. Or with the so-called Fair Tax. Reagan's tax reform in 1986 had only a few brackets and that would be an improvement, too. Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge both believed that the wealthy should pay the bulk of the taxes; I don't agree with them, but then again we didn't have a big welfare state back then either, so I guess it was workable. Any of these things would make the Tax Code Great Again LOL.

I had a small wish list when this debate over taxes began. I'm getting almost nothing that I wanted from this bill! At all. It's an improvement, but it's still weak. It makes me laugh to hear all the liberals and welfare recipients clutch their pearls and faint at the thought of tax reform. This is what I wanted to see (and what we actually got in the end):

1. A corporate tax rate below the average for the developed world (didn't get it).

2. A complete and total end to the mortgage interest deduction, state and local tax deductions, charitable deductions, and all other deductions (we got some improvement on deductions, but not much).

3. An end to the AMT and the Estate Tax (nope. Didn't get that either. A small improvement, but not much.)

4. A lower top marginal tax rate (All we got was a few measley points. Pathetic.)

5. Fewer tax brackets (Ha! Not even close!)

Plus we have an even more generous Child Tax Credit than before. And a new Pass Through Rate for small businesses that all but guarantees we'll have more gaming of the system by businesses.

This. Is. Pathetic.

Tax cuts do not create economic growth, not in the long term.

The low income tax cuts, like increasing the exemption deductions, only go to fattening land lords. We live in a rent extraction society. If you want to better those near the bottom, there have to be cost of living controls.

Tax cuts at the top, just feed speculation bubbles. Our economy grows better when you have Keynesian downward wealth transfer.

So these tax cuts, they are simply an admission that Capitalism is collapsing.

SJG

Burl,

Agreed with a lot of what you said, but I look at it this way. How did we get to how we are today, and not just with taxes. Incrementalism. So let's "incrementalize" ourselves back to the normalcy we knew in the past. There are many good pieces of history throughout our countries existence. Let's work together to put them together and see how that works out.

I know in my 68 years on this planet much has gone downhill and it correlates to the two Democrats and Republicans moving further and further left. I left the demos behind after JFK. And even now I am registered Republican only so I can vote, here, in primaries. I just have to sort out the Republican/democrats of today vs. the Republican/conservatives.

Capitalism means continual innovation. Without this the bourgeoisie can not maintain itself. So today we need far less labor than in this "normalcy" of the past. So more and more people are locked out, driven into the underclass. So since the center did not hold at the ballot box last November, there is going to have to be a revolution. I certainly hope it goes to protests and to riots.

SJG

@san_jose_guy,

Listen, you keep talking about Keynesianism when you really mean something else. Standard Keynesian dogma says to CUT taxes and increase government spending when the economy is weak; and to increase taxes and CUT spending when the economy is "overheated." They believe that this would "prime the pump" and smooth out the peaks and valleys of the business cycle. At no point that I'm aware of would John Maynard Keynes advocate simultaneously raising taxes and increasing government spending. He would have thought this was counterproductive. What you're advocating is just welfarism or redistributionism, not Keynesianism.

@Clubber,

I agree. This is probably the best we can hope for for now, even with Republicans in control of all levers of government. There are a lot of RINOs in DC, like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Unfortunately, the base wants to spend its time frothing at the mouth over guys like Jeff Flake instead; Flake happens to be pretty solid on fiscal matters, but he wants a liberalized immigration system, and he doesn't like Trump. You and I will probably never agree on Jeff Flake, but if the base drives him from the party yet leaves Susan Collins completely unscathed, that's a serious problem for the future of fiscal responsibility in America.

In all my years observing American politics, I've seen the GOP go through one litmus test after another: gays, terrorism, abortion, immigration, and now support for Donald Trump himself seems to have become a litmus test of sorts. I would really like to see spending and tax simplification become the new litmus tests, but that's unlikely to ever happen.

Anyway, many people, including Paul Ryan (and mark94), seem to think that this tax bill will get more popular once they see their taxes go down. I hope so but I'm skeptical. But even if they're right, unfortunately, we won't be noticing the reduced taxes under this new law until April 2019, several months after the midterm elections.

Payroll withholding will change in Feb 2018. The majority of people will see a modest increase in their take home pay. It will be enough to move the needle on public opinion.

@mark94,

I hope so. The American public just doesn't have a good track record of supporting the right things lately. Yes, they support legalizing marijuana, and they strongly opposed the bailouts of 2008, but other than that their opinions have been moving in the wrong direction on a whole host of issues.

If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. But think about this: even if I'm wrong, it still means that the only way we can get people to accept reducing corporate taxes is if we reduce taxes on the "middle class," too. If we did the right thing and flattened out the tax code by reducing taxes on the wealthy and corporations while eliminating deductions for lower income people then there probably would have been a revolt like SJG is always talking about. People have figured out that they can vote themselves new benefits and they don't want the gravy train disturbed. So at best, we're bribing people to eat their vegetables by giving them candy. Anyway, I hope you're right.

@DC9428,

Thank you, I totally agree. And just because someone is rich that doesn't mean that they deserve to carry the rest of us through life like a heavy weight around their neck. In some ways, this tax reform actually makes the code more progressive by reducing the number of people who will pay taxes each year.

Don't most states with no or low income taxes receive the necessary revenue from sales and resort taxes, largely paid by tourists visiting places like Arizona, Nevada, Florida, et al?

I wish state government in places like CA and IL were more fiscally responsible. Large cities like NY, LA and ChI just suck up every spare nickel.

A big part of the problem in high tax states is the relationship between public unions and politicians. Unions use money and labor to get friendly politicians elected. Politicians protect state and municipal workers and their rich pensions. Costs grow exponentially and no one taps the brakes.

How will it affect my crypto-currency profits?

@pensionking,

There are a few legitimately low tax states, but most of the time they're just getting their funding from other sources, aside from the state income tax. States that have no income tax may have a hefty car tax instead (like Nevada), while states that have no sales tax may have high property taxes (like New Hampshire). And sometimes states have a captive industry that functions like an ATM for their legislatures (like Alaska and its energy industry). So there are few true tax havens among the States.

But then there's a few states that are just total pigs about it, namely New York, California, Illinois, Connecticut, and New Jersey (where I live). In these states, property taxes are insane (even after proposition 13 in California), sales taxes are at least as high as the national average, income taxes are steeply progressive, and there are often high vehicular tolls, too.

mark94 hit the nail on the head when he said that public sector unions have something to do with it, and he's correct in pointing out the incestuous relationship between unions and politicians. These States start out with a few people making lots of money in big cities. But these rich people are surrounded by jealous assholes who demand laws to equalize the rich and the poor. This of course results in much slower job creation. So the politicians respond by propping up public sector unions almost like they're a jobs program. Before you know it, people in these states begin equating "jobs" with "government jobs." I've seen it with my own eyes. Even successful business people here sometimes talk about how they need to sell their businesses and get a government job eventually "for the pension" or "for the benefits."

Plus the unions make everything more expensive than it needs to be. Texas spends about $10,000 per mile of road; New Jersey spends over $2 million for the same mile of shitty highway. And this expense results in higher taxes on the wealthy which starts the cycle all over again.

Burl,

I got a raise next year even before the tax legislation. A 2% COLA! Yahoo!

@BHF -- all great points.

Collectively bargained pensions and handouts are crippling high tax states. It is a vicious cycle -- I'll approve your handouts, you vote me back it, then I'll approve your next handout . . .

Without term limits, there is no chance to break this downward spiral.

I believe that the bill is unpopular because of a shit ton of bad information being pumped out by parties with agendas. I also believe that this will change quickly once people actually start seeing the increases in their paychecks provided by reduced withholding rates, nevermind the millions who will benefit in a myriad of other ways.

However, I also believe that this popularity perception is also a product of polling antics. For example, the CNN poll was conducted by calling 1,001 people nationwide. But what it does not disclose is exactly which cities and counties these people were in, which makes a tremendous difference as certain areas tend to have different ideological concentrations of people. Just look at how badly the polls screwed up the Presidential predictions to understand the impact of polling bias.

But with that said, I do believe that the bill will remain less popular in a few deep blue states due to the limits placed upon SALT deductions. A cynical person might contend that these states will never vote Republican anyway, so they got the shaft. But in the right and wrong category, why should we have to help subsidize the fiscal irresponsibility of states that shake down its people and then spend like drunken sailors on shore leave? Money is to Dem politicians like crack is to crack addicts. Maybe it's time for the people of those states to start weening their politicians off of their wallets if they don't want to pay the freight.

Just to add, the information gap was so bad that most people actually believed that their taxes were going to stay flat or increase. Depending upon the poll, the range of people who actually understood that they were getting a tax cut was anywhere from 14-20%.

But this is already starting to change now as even the mainstream media, which spun and cried it's collective ass off about the tax cuts, is now providing more real information about the actual impacts. In a couple of months, once the pay increases show up, people will know just how bad that original information really was.

The tax cuts for working people will mean nothing, because there are no cost controls on housing. So that's where it will go.

And then the costs of being middle-class are the costs of keeping up with the Jones. So again tax cuts give zero benefit.

For those at the bottom, only occasional or limited employment, below the taxation thresholds, they can look forward to escalating housing costs.

SJG

Karl Marx youtube.com