First Paycheck Since the New Tax Rates Were Enacted

[Tresha91203]

I saw the statement for my first paycheck for this Friday that uses the new tax rates. I cleared an extra $70. I get paid every two weeks so over the year that amount will be $1820. My wife's should be similar since we make about the same amount. Plus throw in the extra $1,000 child tax credit and by the end of this year we'll have an extra $4,000 to $5,000 in our pockets we wouldn't have had if the new tax legislation hadn't passed. I can use a lot of this money to pay down my student loans faster. We've also talked about redoing our master bathroom.

When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?

When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?

I have yet to see/hear any Democrat say the tax cut won't now help the middle class. The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase. See also:

• Distributional Analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
• Distributional Analysis of the CBO sent to Sen. Orin Hatch -- This document provides a nice summary chart that shows the progressive diminution of the cut by income group.

They intend for them to be permanent. There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years. Republicans would not let them expire. I doubt Democrats would either if they want to be reelected. The truth is, nothing is permanent in any of it. If an opposing party gets in, they start undoing it. I think it plays well for Republicans in 2024 if anyone is afraid of the Democrats sunsetting the cuts.

Analysis | Republicans explain why their tax cuts are temporary, but not really temporary

One key policy in Senate Republicans' proposed tax overhaul is that tax cuts for individuals will expire within 10 years, while those for corporations will be permanent.

Senate Republicans say that their intention is for Congress to extend these individual tax cuts, too, so the effect of their expiration shouldn't be included in analyses of the bill. “The expectation, they hope, is always that it stays permanent,” said Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho).

But in interviews Wednesday, Senate Republicans also said that it would be wrong to include these tax cuts in the long-term assessment of the bill's effect on the deficit. The sunsetting individual tax cuts were included in the bill so it complies with Senate rules that legislation can be passed with a simple majority only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.

There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years.

The rules to which you refer has nothing to do with time. They combine to limit what the Senate can do under Reconciliation rather than as regular legislation, and the terms of the rules have to do with legislation's budgetary/fiscal/economic impact. Congress opted to pass a bill containing provisions whereby the budgetary constraints could only be complied with over a ten year span.

• Byrd Rule
• Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
• The Rule That Broke the Senate

Were the GOP of a mind to pass the tax cuts as regular legislation, they would have faced no constraints pertaining to the Reconciliation process. McConnell opted to pass the tax bill under Reconciliation provisions rather than craft and pass a tax bill that had stuff in it that would appease ten Democrats enough that they'd vote for it.

Right, to get it passed (through the Democrats), they had to go the simple-majority route. So the 10-year rule applies. If they had not done that, there would be no tax bill passed because the Democrats wouldn't vote for it.

If they had not done that, there would be no tax bill passed because the Democrats wouldn't vote for it.

You're assuming that there is no combination of provisions that could have been included in a tax bill such that at least nine Senate Democrats would vote for the bill and so too would Senate Republicans as well as House Republicans, or a mix of they and House Democrats, doing so, thereby obviating the need for McConnell to have used Reconciliation to pass the thing. I, on the other hand am of the mind that such a combination of provisions does indeed exist and that it is merely a matter of putting in the effort needed to determine what are the elements of that combination.

What materially deterred the GOP from endeavoring to find such a combination? Politics. Quite simply it may well have taken more than the few weeks the GOP used to pass the bill they passed, thus pushing into calendar 2018 the passage of such a bill. Were that to have happened, the GOP would have had no major legislative accomplishment for calendar 2017. A political strategy decision was made whereby allowing that to happen was unconscionable and anathematic to the GOP's political fortunes.

They did it in an attempt to hold power, I agree. I'm not sure these two sides currently CAN compromise effectively. I expect brawls on the floor within the next few years, sadly.

 

[2aguy]

I saw the statement for my first paycheck for this Friday that uses the new tax rates. I cleared an extra $70. I get paid every two weeks so over the year that amount will be $1820. My wife's should be similar since we make about the same amount. Plus throw in the extra $1,000 child tax credit and by the end of this year we'll have an extra $4,000 to $5,000 in our pockets we wouldn't have had if the new tax legislation hadn't passed. I can use a lot of this money to pay down my student loans faster. We've also talked about redoing our master bathroom.

When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?

But was your extra 70 dollars a check worth the destruction of civilization and the deaths of most of the people on earth? The democrats warned us that allowing you to keep that 70 dollars would be an extinction level event......so with civilization in ruins....where will you spend that 70 dollars? At the zombie brain store?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Hard to do when state budgets have already been established
Supposedly, the Trump cutting of state tax deductions will result in a 7.5% reduction in the value of real estate in my state

So now you'll have to pay the taxes you've been voting for all these years. I fail to see the issue.

Not my thread it's yours

You are boasting how everyone benefitted. Wasn't a benefit for me
But then again, I am not a billionaire

OT:

I am not a billionaire

FWIW, only about 2000 people on the whole planet are. Millionaires (net worth, not annual income), on the other hand, are, effectively, "a dime a dozen."​

Doesn't take much to reach a million. I did it just by working for 40 years and setting aside some money

I did it just by working for 40 years and setting aside some money

I did it just by working for 40 years and setting aside some money

You and pretty much anyone else who's both reasonably competent and reasonably "hard working." If they haven't literally crossed the million dollar mark, they ought to, after 40 years, be close enough as makes no difference.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I have yet to see/hear any Democrat say the tax cut won't now help the middle class. The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase. See also:

• Distributional Analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
• Distributional Analysis of the CBO sent to Sen. Orin Hatch -- This document provides a nice summary chart that shows the progressive diminution of the cut by income group.

They intend for them to be permanent. There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years. Republicans would not let them expire. I doubt Democrats would either if they want to be reelected. The truth is, nothing is permanent in any of it. If an opposing party gets in, they start undoing it. I think it plays well for Republicans in 2024 if anyone is afraid of the Democrats sunsetting the cuts.

Analysis | Republicans explain why their tax cuts are temporary, but not really temporary

One key policy in Senate Republicans' proposed tax overhaul is that tax cuts for individuals will expire within 10 years, while those for corporations will be permanent.

Senate Republicans say that their intention is for Congress to extend these individual tax cuts, too, so the effect of their expiration shouldn't be included in analyses of the bill. “The expectation, they hope, is always that it stays permanent,” said Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho).

But in interviews Wednesday, Senate Republicans also said that it would be wrong to include these tax cuts in the long-term assessment of the bill's effect on the deficit. The sunsetting individual tax cuts were included in the bill so it complies with Senate rules that legislation can be passed with a simple majority only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.

There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years.

The rules to which you refer has nothing to do with time. They combine to limit what the Senate can do under Reconciliation rather than as regular legislation, and the terms of the rules have to do with legislation's budgetary/fiscal/economic impact. Congress opted to pass a bill containing provisions whereby the budgetary constraints could only be complied with over a ten year span.

• Byrd Rule
• Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
• The Rule That Broke the Senate

Were the GOP of a mind to pass the tax cuts as regular legislation, they would have faced no constraints pertaining to the Reconciliation process. McConnell opted to pass the tax bill under Reconciliation provisions rather than craft and pass a tax bill that had stuff in it that would appease ten Democrats enough that they'd vote for it.

The constraints from the Democrats were more onerous than the constraints from Reconciliation. Plus, "sunsetting" personal income tax breaks favor Republicans in an election cycle, and it will be.

The sunsetting individual tax cuts were included in the bill so it complies with Senate rules that legislation can be passed with a simple majority only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.

only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.

Exactly. Thus, if a piece of reconciliation legislation does not increase the deficit 10 years down the road, but does so 20 years down the road, the legislation can be passed under reconciliation. The basis of measurement is the legislation's impact on the deficit over time, not the mere passage of time. Seriously, do you not understand the difference between those two constraints?

I do. I believe it helps the Republicans, so they did it. It will draw more voters to the Republicans (who will extend) in 2022 and 2024. People who don't want their tax break to expire will think long and hard about voting for a Democrat who will likely allow them to expire.

I believe it helps the Republicans, so they did it.

Taking that approach did abet the GOP's ends, but whether it did or didn't isn't the point of contention we've been discussing. What we've been "on about" is the fact that there is no ten-year or any other temporal limit on the legislation that can be enacted under the aegis of Reconciliation.

 

[Tresha91203]

They intend for them to be permanent. There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years. Republicans would not let them expire. I doubt Democrats would either if they want to be reelected. The truth is, nothing is permanent in any of it. If an opposing party gets in, they start undoing it. I think it plays well for Republicans in 2024 if anyone is afraid of the Democrats sunsetting the cuts.

Analysis | Republicans explain why their tax cuts are temporary, but not really temporary

One key policy in Senate Republicans' proposed tax overhaul is that tax cuts for individuals will expire within 10 years, while those for corporations will be permanent.

Senate Republicans say that their intention is for Congress to extend these individual tax cuts, too, so the effect of their expiration shouldn't be included in analyses of the bill. “The expectation, they hope, is always that it stays permanent,” said Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho).

But in interviews Wednesday, Senate Republicans also said that it would be wrong to include these tax cuts in the long-term assessment of the bill's effect on the deficit. The sunsetting individual tax cuts were included in the bill so it complies with Senate rules that legislation can be passed with a simple majority only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.

There's a Senate rule that would not allow beyond 10 years.

The rules to which you refer has nothing to do with time. They combine to limit what the Senate can do under Reconciliation rather than as regular legislation, and the terms of the rules have to do with legislation's budgetary/fiscal/economic impact. Congress opted to pass a bill containing provisions whereby the budgetary constraints could only be complied with over a ten year span.

• Byrd Rule
• Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
• The Rule That Broke the Senate

Were the GOP of a mind to pass the tax cuts as regular legislation, they would have faced no constraints pertaining to the Reconciliation process. McConnell opted to pass the tax bill under Reconciliation provisions rather than craft and pass a tax bill that had stuff in it that would appease ten Democrats enough that they'd vote for it.

The constraints from the Democrats were more onerous than the constraints from Reconciliation. Plus, "sunsetting" personal income tax breaks favor Republicans in an election cycle, and it will be.

The sunsetting individual tax cuts were included in the bill so it complies with Senate rules that legislation can be passed with a simple majority only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.

only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.

Exactly. Thus, if a piece of reconciliation legislation does not increase the deficit 10 years down the road, but does so 20 years down the road, the legislation can be passed under reconciliation. The basis of measurement is the legislation's impact on the deficit over time, not the mere passage of time. Seriously, do you not understand the difference between those two constraints?

I do. I believe it helps the Republicans, so they did it. It will draw more voters to the Republicans (who will extend) in 2022 and 2024. People who don't want their tax break to expire will think long and hard about voting for a Democrat who will likely allow them to expire.

I believe it helps the Republicans, so they did it.

Taking that approach did abet the GOP's ends, but whether it did or didn't isn't the point of contention we've been discussing. What we've been "on about" is the fact that there is no ten-year or any other temporal limit on the legislation that can be enacted under the aegis of Reconciliation.

I see. My apologies. Yes, they could have set it at 15 years (creating a 15-year rule) or 20 years (20-year rule). I should have been more clear. My 10-year rule is because they set it at 10 years. That is my understanding. I've been wrong once before, though.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The rules to which you refer has nothing to do with time. They combine to limit what the Senate can do under Reconciliation rather than as regular legislation, and the terms of the rules have to do with legislation's budgetary/fiscal/economic impact. Congress opted to pass a bill containing provisions whereby the budgetary constraints could only be complied with over a ten year span.

• Byrd Rule
• Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
• The Rule That Broke the Senate

Were the GOP of a mind to pass the tax cuts as regular legislation, they would have faced no constraints pertaining to the Reconciliation process. McConnell opted to pass the tax bill under Reconciliation provisions rather than craft and pass a tax bill that had stuff in it that would appease ten Democrats enough that they'd vote for it.

The constraints from the Democrats were more onerous than the constraints from Reconciliation. Plus, "sunsetting" personal income tax breaks favor Republicans in an election cycle, and it will be.

The sunsetting individual tax cuts were included in the bill so it complies with Senate rules that legislation can be passed with a simple majority only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.

only if it doesn't drive up the deficit 10 years after passage.

Exactly. Thus, if a piece of reconciliation legislation does not increase the deficit 10 years down the road, but does so 20 years down the road, the legislation can be passed under reconciliation. The basis of measurement is the legislation's impact on the deficit over time, not the mere passage of time. Seriously, do you not understand the difference between those two constraints?

I do. I believe it helps the Republicans, so they did it. It will draw more voters to the Republicans (who will extend) in 2022 and 2024. People who don't want their tax break to expire will think long and hard about voting for a Democrat who will likely allow them to expire.

I believe it helps the Republicans, so they did it.

Taking that approach did abet the GOP's ends, but whether it did or didn't isn't the point of contention we've been discussing. What we've been "on about" is the fact that there is no ten-year or any other temporal limit on the legislation that can be enacted under the aegis of Reconciliation.

I see. My apologies. Yes, they could have set it at 15 years (creating a 15-year rule) or 20 years (20-year rule). I should have been more clear. My 10-year rule is because they set it at 10 years. That is my understanding. I've been wrong once before, though.

I see. My apologies. Yes, they could have set it at 15 years (creating a 15-year rule) or 20 years (20-year rule). I should have been more clear. My 10-year rule is because they set it at 10 years.

NP. Insofar as you now seem to realize that it's the deficit impact that drives the tenure of legislation that must be Reconciliation rule compliant, and not a stipulated time period that limits the legislation's tenure, you got it.

I've been wrong once before, though.

I have too. LOL

 

[Avatar4321]

I saw the statement for my first paycheck for this Friday that uses the new tax rates. I cleared an extra $70. I get paid every two weeks so over the year that amount will be $1820. My wife's should be similar since we make about the same amount. Plus throw in the extra $1,000 child tax credit and by the end of this year we'll have an extra $4,000 to $5,000 in our pockets we wouldn't have had if the new tax legislation hadn't passed. I can use a lot of this money to pay down my student loans faster. We've also talked about redoing our master bathroom.

When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?

When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?

I have yet to see/hear any Democrat say the tax cut won't now help the middle class. The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase. See also:

• Distributional Analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
• Distributional Analysis of the CBO sent to Sen. Orin Hatch -- This document provides a nice summary chart that shows the progressive diminution of the cut by income group.

The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase.

Democrats are welcome to write a tax bill that makes these middle class tax cuts larger and permanent.
I've heard they like it when people keep more of their own money.

I await their legislative improvements.

Ted Cruz publicly invited Bernie Sanders to cosponser a bill that did just that when Bernie was complaining about it. Last I checked senator sanders has not taking up that offer

 

[Avatar4321]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is more structurally sound.

Why would artificially forcing a minimum wage on employers ever be more sound than allowing market forces to push wages up voluntarily?

 

[rightwinger]

I saw the statement for my first paycheck for this Friday that uses the new tax rates. I cleared an extra $70. I get paid every two weeks so over the year that amount will be $1820. My wife's should be similar since we make about the same amount. Plus throw in the extra $1,000 child tax credit and by the end of this year we'll have an extra $4,000 to $5,000 in our pockets we wouldn't have had if the new tax legislation hadn't passed. I can use a lot of this money to pay down my student loans faster. We've also talked about redoing our master bathroom.

When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?

When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?

I have yet to see/hear any Democrat say the tax cut won't now help the middle class. The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase. See also:

• Distributional Analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
• Distributional Analysis of the CBO sent to Sen. Orin Hatch -- This document provides a nice summary chart that shows the progressive diminution of the cut by income group.

The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase.

Democrats are welcome to write a tax bill that makes these middle class tax cuts larger and permanent.
I've heard they like it when people keep more of their own money.

I await their legislative improvements.

Ted Cruz publicly invited Bernie Sanders to cosponser a bill that did just that when Bernie was complaining about it. Last I checked senator sanders has not taking up that offer

Democrats will do what Obama did

Allow the tax cuts on the middle class to remain and revoke the corporate and wealthy tax cuts to expire

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Democrats will do what Obama did

Allow the tax cuts on the middle class to remain and revoke the corporate and wealthy tax cuts to expire

The corporate tax cuts aren't set to expire. They would have to be raised, which is a great idea, if you want to put the economy in a complete tail spin and put people out of work.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Hard to do when state budgets have already been established
Supposedly, the Trump cutting of state tax deductions will result in a 7.5% reduction in the value of real estate in my state

So now you'll have to pay the taxes you've been voting for all these years. I fail to see the issue.

Not my thread it's yours

You are boasting how everyone benefitted. Wasn't a benefit for me
But then again, I am not a billionaire, I am but a humble message board poster

I'm benefiting quite well and I'm not a billionaire either. You're the one who voted in people for years who raised your local taxes. Who's fault is that? Why are you complaining about paying your fair share?

 

[Avatar4321]

I saw the statement for my first paycheck for this Friday that uses the new tax rates. I cleared an extra $70. I get paid every two weeks so over the year that amount will be $1820. My wife's should be similar since we make about the same amount. Plus throw in the extra $1,000 child tax credit and by the end of this year we'll have an extra $4,000 to $5,000 in our pockets we wouldn't have had if the new tax legislation hadn't passed. I can use a lot of this money to pay down my student loans faster. We've also talked about redoing our master bathroom.

When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?

When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?

I have yet to see/hear any Democrat say the tax cut won't now help the middle class. The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase. See also:

• Distributional Analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
• Distributional Analysis of the CBO sent to Sen. Orin Hatch -- This document provides a nice summary chart that shows the progressive diminution of the cut by income group.

The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase.

Democrats are welcome to write a tax bill that makes these middle class tax cuts larger and permanent.
I've heard they like it when people keep more of their own money.

I await their legislative improvements.

Ted Cruz publicly invited Bernie Sanders to cosponser a bill that did just that when Bernie was complaining about it. Last I checked senator sanders has not taking up that offer

Democrats will do what Obama did

Allow the tax cuts on the middle class to remain and revoke the corporate and wealthy tax cuts to expire

I have no problem If you wait for the corporate rates expire.

You’ll be waiting a long time

 

[Dschrute3]

Let's be real, Democrats want more Americans living in poverty. They need more folks to be solely dependent on Government. I strongly recommend checking out the documentary 'Agenda.' You can watch it on Amazon Prime. Communist Globalists have an agenda. And it's an agenda 100yrs in the making.

 

[Reasonable]

I saw the statement for my first paycheck for this Friday that uses the new tax rates. I cleared an extra $70. I get paid every two weeks so over the year that amount will be $1820. My wife's should be similar since we make about the same amount. Plus throw in the extra $1,000 child tax credit and by the end of this year we'll have an extra $4,000 to $5,000 in our pockets we wouldn't have had if the new tax legislation hadn't passed. I can use a lot of this money to pay down my student loans faster. We've also talked about redoing our master bathroom.

When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?

You're getting peanuts next to Trump and his rich cronies. The American people are smart enough to know this. Obviously you're not.

 

[rightwinger]

Democrats will do what Obama did

Allow the tax cuts on the middle class to remain and revoke the corporate and wealthy tax cuts to expire

The corporate tax cuts aren't set to expire. They would have to be raised, which is a great idea, if you want to put the economy in a complete tail spin and put people out of work.

We could do it to balance the budget
Something Republicans used to care about

Our corporations were doing just fine under the old tax rates

 

[rightwinger]

I saw the statement for my first paycheck for this Friday that uses the new tax rates. I cleared an extra $70. I get paid every two weeks so over the year that amount will be $1820. My wife's should be similar since we make about the same amount. Plus throw in the extra $1,000 child tax credit and by the end of this year we'll have an extra $4,000 to $5,000 in our pockets we wouldn't have had if the new tax legislation hadn't passed. I can use a lot of this money to pay down my student loans faster. We've also talked about redoing our master bathroom.

When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?

When will Democrats stop lying and claiming that this legislation won't help the middle class?

I have yet to see/hear any Democrat say the tax cut won't now help the middle class. The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase. See also:

• Distributional Analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
• Distributional Analysis of the CBO sent to Sen. Orin Hatch -- This document provides a nice summary chart that shows the progressive diminution of the cut by income group.

The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase.

Democrats are welcome to write a tax bill that makes these middle class tax cuts larger and permanent.
I've heard they like it when people keep more of their own money.

I await their legislative improvements.

Ted Cruz publicly invited Bernie Sanders to cosponser a bill that did just that when Bernie was complaining about it. Last I checked senator sanders has not taking up that offer

Democrats will do what Obama did

Allow the tax cuts on the middle class to remain and revoke the corporate and wealthy tax cuts to expire

I have no problem If you wait for the corporate rates expire.

You’ll be waiting a long time

Dems can raise them the same way Republicans lowered them
Reconciliation

 

[Reasonable]

Let's be real, Democrats want more Americans living in poverty.

Your lies are more absurd than all the thousands of Trump's lies put together.
Democrats are the only party that advocate for the poor.
40 years of evidence is at your fingertips.

 

[Avatar4321]

I have yet to see/hear any Democrat say the tax cut won't now help the middle class. The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase. See also:

• Distributional Analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
• Distributional Analysis of the CBO sent to Sen. Orin Hatch -- This document provides a nice summary chart that shows the progressive diminution of the cut by income group.

The charge I've heard Democrats (and the CBO) make is that the tax cut is inequitable because over time, for the poorest taxpayers, what is in 2018 a tax cut will become a tax increase.

Democrats are welcome to write a tax bill that makes these middle class tax cuts larger and permanent.
I've heard they like it when people keep more of their own money.

I await their legislative improvements.

Ted Cruz publicly invited Bernie Sanders to cosponser a bill that did just that when Bernie was complaining about it. Last I checked senator sanders has not taking up that offer

Democrats will do what Obama did

Allow the tax cuts on the middle class to remain and revoke the corporate and wealthy tax cuts to expire

I have no problem If you wait for the corporate rates expire.

You’ll be waiting a long time

Dems can raise them the same way Republicans lowered them
Reconciliation

You only need Congress and the presidency to do that.

Real question is is any politician stupid enough to raise taxes on a growing and thriving economy?

 

[Siete]

so how are these new pay check raises going to effect w2's in april, then a year later the next april ...

 

[Avatar4321]

Let's be real, Democrats want more Americans living in poverty.

Your lies are more absurd than all the thousands of Trump's lies put together.
Democrats are the only party that advocate for the poor.
40 years of evidence is at your fingertips.

Then why do you punish those who pull themselves out of poverty? Why do you create regulation that prevents people from supporting themselves?