If any paragraph written establishes as fact that tax simplification is needed, it’s found in this article. Specifically, the paragraph that says “To finance a 15 percent cut in the corporate tax rate, House Republicans have already signed on to revenue-generating measures that would weaken the real-estate market, hurt orphans, disadvantage the disabled, hobble research on cures for rare diseases, make it harder for veterans to find jobs, soak upper-middle-class voters in blue states — and, thereby, put their caucus’s most vulnerable members at grave political risk.”

Predictably, every DC lobbyist is whining about their special carve-outs getting eliminated. The lobbyists’ goal is to portray each deduction as essential to the health of that specific industry. In 1986, most of the tax code’s deductions were stripped away. Not only didn’t the economy falter, the economy kept chugging along.

Think of this hysteria as a Chicken Little defense.

This is a bit deceptive:

According to the JCT, if the Republican plan passes, one-fifth of American households will pay higher taxes in 2027. While more middle-class families would be helped than hurt by the GOP plan, the fact that any will wind up forking over more money to Uncle Sam, while the super rich and corporate America collect trillions in benefits, is a political migraine for Trump & Co.

If the bill is passed using reconciliation, the tax cuts expire in 2026. The chances of those tax cuts being allowed to expire isn’t nothing but the chances aren’t exactly high, either.

There is one way around this impasse. Republicans could make the House plan better for the middle class, and easier on the deficit, at the same time, if they’d only scale back their $2 trillion giveaway to corporate America.

Thanks to the Obama tax increase, there’s now over $4,000,000,000,000 in profits sitting overseas rather than being invested here in the United States. Fairness sounds nice but it’s the best way to quiet the US economy. The Obama administration was famous for economic silence. We don’t want a replay of those years. The quack that wrote the base article is hysterical, not credible. The expert in this video is credible:

Leave a Reply